Guild Wars Wiki talk:Assume good faith

...
This seems very uncontroversial to me, thumbs up. --Xeeron 11:14, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I would strongly support this becoming a wiki guideline, as is, rather than policy. Edit: I'll also support this as policy for now..but not as strongly. =) --Rezyk 15:51, 8 February 2007 (PST)


 * Hmmm, what is, technically, the difference between a guideline and a policy here? --Xeeron 16:00, 8 February 2007 (PST)


 * I don't think it's been defined on this wiki yet (but I may have just missed it). The wikipedia explanation for their usage is here. --Rezyk 16:13, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * So can I understand guidelines as a sort of "policy lite"? --Xeeron 03:29, 9 February 2007 (PST)
 * There is a significant difference. One this wiki hasn't decided on whether to make such a distinction yet. For example, the S&F are actually guidelines rather than policy. To put them simply, policies are like rules of conduct and regulations. They are clearly defined and must not be violated. Guidelines are like accepted behavior. These are the things that should be done. So it's "compulsory" versus "recommended". "Required" versus "encouraged". --ab.er.rant (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2007 (PST)
 * Well it's the same policy as on GuildWiki of course, and several days since it's proposed...any reason why it isn't accepted yet ? although it does 'feel' more like a guideline :p --Erszebet 11:36, 13 February 2007 (PST)


 * There hasn't been any opposition, but only 2 supports. I invite more people to voice a support/oppose opinion. --Rezyk 11:41, 13 February 2007 (PST)


 * I have a preference for Wikipedia's less wordy version of this. I also support it as a guideline rather than a policy, but I could see this one argued either way. --Barek 11:52, 13 February 2007 (PST)
 * I'm in favor of this. In my opinion its better as a policy but that's more just a personal stance on the matter.  Lojiin 11:53, 13 February 2007 (PST)
 * Hmm, after reading the Wikipedia's version I slightly re-wrote our version (hope you don't mind me doing so). It's posted Here. I tried to use a more 'formal' way of writing, but please note that English isn't my mother tongue. Any thoughts on it ? --Erszebet 13:04, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Policy?
Can someone explain to me why this is considered a policy yet Guild Wars Wiki:You are valuable is not? Both are essentially statements that govern expected and accepted behavior from users. -- ab . er . rant 18:55, 13 February 2007 (PST)


 * Simplest way I can think to explain it is, you can legislate what people do, not how they feel. Although that is rather tenuous.  --Rainith 19:01, 13 February 2007 (PST)
 * Exactly. This policy is telling people to always assume good faith unless it's blatantly obvious that it isn't in good faith. It is kinda like telling me to ignore my first impression that the edit in question isn't in good faith, and that, more accurately, is more courtesy and politeness than any policy. -- ab . er . rant 19:05, 13 February 2007 (PST)


 * The "assume" here is intended to be read in the legalistic sense, I think. The situation is similar to the presumption of innocence in Western judicial systems. No one can force you to think in any particular way, but as a matter of conduct you should display an assumption of good faith on the part of other editors, lacking clear evidence to the contrary. S 19:55, 13 February 2007 (PST)


 * If you were going to rewrite the title in more informal language, what would it be? &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2007 (PST)


 * Not sure if I can phrase it any better. Wikipedia has a page called "Don't be a dick", which summarizes how I understand this document. It's basically a strange way to state the Golden Rule. I echo Barek above in saying that this should really be a sort of guideline instead of a policy, but I'm not strongly opposed to it as with YAV, which I don't personally believe in (not specifically directed at anyone). S 20:05, 13 February 2007 (PST)
 * I see. How about we merge all these not-really-policy and borderline-policy stuff into something like "Code of conduct" or something? --ab.er.rant 23:13, 13 February 2007 (PST)
 * All the off-specific-topic policies few of the new contributers read rolled into one big "welcome page" is a great idea, and it would increase chances that Joe User would read it. /Agree -Auron 23:17, 13 February 2007 (PST)
 * We do need a welcome page... and then to send a message to new users to welcome them (or something). Either way, I think a welcome page would be useful for this, as well as others things too. Ale_Jrb  ( talk ) 00:04, 14 February 2007 (PST)
 * Heheh. A Welcoming Committee? -Auron 00:04, 15 February 2007 (PST)
 * Been there, part of it =D Ale_Jrb  ( talk ) 08:29, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I agree with ab.er.ant. This policy has no function. It should be removed and worked into the revert policy. It can be summed up as "explain your reverts", "edits are preferable to reverts", "make sure an action was done in malice before labeling it vandalism." -Warskull 10:24, 20 February 2007 (PST)

Guideline
Now that Guild_Wars_Wiki:Guidelines is finalized, I would suggest we make this one of the first of them. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wanted to propose this too. I was thinking about organization, and since I moved the formatting stuff as a formatting guideline, I'm thinking this is a behavioral guideline. A plain guideline can be reserved for things like definitions or conventions or explanations. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I support this becomming a guideline, however the current formatting needs to be worked on. I strongly believe that policies and guidelines should be crisp and easy to read. No one will bother to dig through what is basically a page sized block of text. This needs headlines badly. Also, if it is possible to cut away redundancy or rewrite parts to be shorter, the guideline would benefit. --Xeeron 09:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I can't support this as a guideline until it's reading-friendly. At the moment it looks more like a wall of text to me. (edit) I did a rewrite over at my sandbox, trying to focus on the big things in this text. I didn't edit the article, because I thought this was a quite drastic change and would like some feedback before proposing this.  -  anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 12:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for my understanding, doesn't this guideline rely a bit on a 1RV, 3RR or 1RR policy? -- [[Image:User Corrran sig.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 10:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the part which explicitly relied on any of those polices before I proposed making it a guideline. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

i also support this becoming a guideline, with the same restrictions as mentioned above. i like the bullet list layout. :) - Y0_ ich_halt  20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made some modifications (mostly division into sections, with a short addition along the lines of Anja's summary at the beginning and some minor tweaks) - feel free all to make your own tweaks to help clarify and streamline it. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Adopting this
Bump. Any more issues? -- ab.er. rant  02:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * S'fine to me. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine to me too. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 07:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since my comment in the section above, the page has aquired some headlines, which is good, yet it has grown even longer than before. I don't disagree with it becomming a guideline now (seeing how guidelines can be changed even when no longer proposals). I still feel that all that could be said in much less words. --Xeeron 09:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's ok. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 10:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy
"It has wide acceptance among editors" I have never even read this guideline until now and I imagine the vast majority of editors haven't either. I don't beleive most wiki users here follow this guideline either, what is its purpose? Does it have any kind of power? Dancing Gnome 13:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Guidelines have as much power as the editors reading them give them. They're just that, guidelines, not requirements. (See Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines). [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with Aiiane) You could possibly add "It has wide acceptance among those editors who bothered to check the policy/guideline pages of this wiki and contributed to these" but that would make it a tad long for an infobox. If you want to know what power it has, check the policy linked by Aiiane. It's like the difference between "should follow" and "must follow". --Xeeron 14:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I never follow this.
I always get worked up when people have added misspelled material, most of the sentences or split words starting with small caps letters, and stuff I've seen like at a page I once saw that I couldn't realise if it was a vandalised page or the user that wrote it made a crash of an attempt to help. Ninjas In The Sky  19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can get worked up :) As long you don't start attacking that seems-like-acting-in-bad-faith person, directly or indirectly, via the wiki. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Then I don't need specialised therapy, right? Ninjas In The Sky  08:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest it anyway. Napalm Flame 08:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)