Wikipedia:Assume good faith: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:30, 2 April 2004

When edit wars get hot, its easy to forget to assume good faith.

If you assume bad faith then several things will happen

You might make a personal attacks. Once you've made a personal attack on someone, they are likely to take it personally. Once this happens they are likely to stop assuming good faith in you. The edit war will get even uglier. People, like elephants, rarely forget.

You might lose sight of the NPOV policy. The ideal is to make articles acceptable to everyone. Every time you revert a biased edit it is a defeat for NPOV, no matter how outrageous the edit was. Consider figuring out why the other person felt the article is biased, and making that point, but in terms you consider neutral. If every side continues to do this they will eventually meet at NPOV - or a rough semblance of it.

If you correct someones error (even if you really secretly think it was deliberate) the person is likely to take it better than you outright accuse them of lying.

Revision as of 22:50, 3 March 2004 view source Morwen (talk \| contribs) Administrators 56,947 edits another reason ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:30, 2 April 2004 view source Angela (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 45,368 edits ''See also'': MeatBall:AssumeGoodFaith Next edit →
Line 8:		Line 8:

	*If you correct someones error (even if you really secretly think it was deliberate) the person is likely to take it better than you outright accuse them of lying.		*If you correct someones error (even if you really secretly think it was deliberate) the person is likely to take it better than you outright accuse them of lying.

			''See also'': [[MeatBall:AssumeGoodFaith]]