Wikipedia:Assume good faith

To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. If this were not true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project.

Consider using talk pages to clearly explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus if possible. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating.

Good faith is obviously not bad faith. Bad faith editing can include deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing games with policies, and vandalism. Even if good faith is in doubt, assume good faith where you can, be careful to remain civil yourself, and if necessary follow dispute resolution processes rather than edit warring or attacking other editors.

About good faith

Assuming good faith is about intention, not action. Well-meaning persons make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act as if their mistakes were deliberate. Correct, but do not scold. There will be people on Wikipedia with whom you disagree. Even if they are wrong, that does not mean they are trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That does not mean they are trying to wreck the project either. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent.

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.

Good faith and newcomers

Main page: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Be patient with genuine newcomers. Newcomers unaware of Wikipedia's unique culture and the mechanics of Wikipedia editing often make mistakes or fail to respect community norms. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their experience elsewhere. Similarly, many newcomers bring with them experience or expertise for which they expect immediate respect. Behaviors arising from these perspectives are not malicious. Please just be respectful and try to help.

Take special care not to apply the principle of "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse"). This is incompatible with the guidelines of not biting newcomers and assuming good faith. Assuming good faith means, in part, knowing that people come in not understanding our policies and guidelines.

Dealing with bad faith

Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, attack others, or lose your cool over it. It is not necessary to be a fanatic yourself. Even though it demands a lot of self control and patience, it is ultimately a lot easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies, if one side is clearly editing appropriately throughout.

Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct, if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence of it.

Accusing others of bad faith

Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith.

See also

Guidelines

• Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Essays

• Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith
• Wikipedia:Honesty
• Wikipedia:Assume the presence of a belly-button
• Wikipedia:No angry mastodons
• Wikipedia:On assuming good faith
• Wikipedia:Assume bad faith
• Wikipedia:Wiki spirit
• Wikipedia:Assume good wraith
• Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa (from meta)
• MeatBall:AssumeGoodFaith (from MeatballWiki)
• Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade

Articles

• Suspension of judgment
• Presumption of innocence
• Hanlon's razor
• Reciprocal altruism