Wikipedia:Assume good wraith
|This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously.|
|This page in a nutshell: Not all ghosts are evil, despite stereotype.|
Unless you’ve been living under a troll for the last 6 years, you would have heard about Wikipedia’s assume good faith policy, and you would probably have seen assume the assumption of good faith and assume bad faith. But in all of these pages, the good people of Wikipedia have forgotten a crucial message…
What is this telling us, you may ask? Well, usually when you think of ghosts you think of horror movies, white cloaks, and Ghostbusters; 3 equally evil concepts. But ghosts have had a bad stereotype built against them through the ages (Ghostbusters 2 was the final straw, surely), and people have forgotten all about Casper the friendly ghost. You must never become one of these people.
If you ever see a ghost, or other supernatural creature, always assume it is friendly, like Casper. Assume that it is benevolent, and not malevolent. Don't call it a "bringer of death", a "possessor of darkness", and please don't call the Ghostbusters! Give it a chance, and assume that it's a good wraith.
This has Wikipedia applications, right?
No, it doesn’t, otherwise it would be an essay. If you can’t detect the sarcasm in it then you really shouldn’t be browsing the Wikipedia humour category, mate.
- "Thank you, someone that is on my side. I hate my middle name "wraith" because of the assumption that it "must be something bad". Please enlighten me to another meaning and I will stop searching for a new name. And yes, I do believe that names have a lot to do with someone's character." 
Please! Give me a clue? How can we AGW on Wikipedia?
*groan* – You can AGW by not jumping to conclusions about new users who may go slightly against the grain, but instead giving them a chance to show that they are acting for the better of the project. You can AGW by not calling even the most tenuous of
IP's ghosts a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, and by not calling in a possessor of the banning stick.
No, not even if it's fun
Yes, we all understand. Sometimes, our strange human minds find happiness in the suffering of others, therefore, we assume that they are trying to do bad, so we can stomp them out of existence, thus making ourselves feel better due to the fact that we are helping, and the fact that we made someone else miserable. THAT'S A BAD THING TO DO! It's hard to resist sometimes, but just remember, you were a newbie once too, and you probably have edits deep in your contributions page that you aren't exactly proud of, like that one where you accidentally screwed up the template so it made the whole page have a panic attack and such. Long story short... just because it makes you feel better... it makes them feel worse, remember that.
Hey wait, aren't those just applications of AGF, not AGW?
I don't think I have to answer that.
But what do I do if I come across the OTHER kind of Wraith editing Wikipedia?
In the event that you encounter this scenario, you are advised to Assume Good Wraith only if the Wraith in question happens to be editing under the account User:ToddW. Otherwise, inform an admin immediately.
- Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)
- Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith (WP:AAGF)
- Wikipedia:Assume bad faith (WP:ABF)
- Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)
- Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies
- Wikipedia:Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them
- Ghostbusters (On second thoughts, don’t ever see this)
- Anthropogenic global warming - the real definition of AGW.