Forum:Redefining how AGF can be applied

Forums: Index → War Room → Redefining how AGF can be applied

Before you say anything, yes, I'm not a fan of AGF by any stretch of the imagination.

To get down to the point, it appears that the assume good faith guideline is becoming increasingly common in forum discusions, or rather, voting. However, when people quote the guideline, there is one fundemental flaw; the guideline is written towards new editors and any possible mistakes they might make, with the guideline summing it up as, "Be patient with newcomers. They may not know how to edit a wiki or what's supposed to be added as content."

Naturally, when people quote a guideline about new users editing in completely unrelated forums, it doesn't make much sense. When I say something, why do you quote something about portrayed vandalism? To put the current usage of AGF into context is like you yelling UTP at your computer because it asks you for a captcha.

So, the way I see it there are multiple options:

Reword the guideline to better incorporate how we should all love each other and assume that no matter what the other person's real intentions are, lets say... when they make a crap thread in the War Room that sounds totally counterintuative, the suggestion is genuinely in the interests of the wiki and not just the proposer's. This option would ensure that the current usage of the guideline survives.
Instead of rewritting the guideline, limit the scope of which AGF affects to just user editing, which in turn would mean the guideline would in no way, shape or form have any effect on the outcome of future War Room discussions other than the extreme exception.
Abolish AGF entirely and instead replace the guideline with one such as Uncyclopedia's Assume Bad Faith. (I think I'm the only person on the wiki who'd be ok with this, mind. COD:NOT does not outlaw to this option).

inb4 "smuff is doing this for his own personal gain!!1!1!one," I am giving a multiple number of options to choose from, and if the first is chosen and the guideline is changed to better suit its current usage then nothing bad will have come out of the suggestion. So, assume good faith pl0x ;)Smuff^{[citation provided]} 19:44, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I've had an incident before where no-one assumed good faith except for one awesome guy. The thing is that AGF doesn't always work, and people aren't sure at how to use it. So I'd say something like Assume Bad Faith, even though Uncyclopedia doesn't have it (faillink, bro) I'll need to see other people's points of views to get more ideas YELLOWLUCARIO ^TALK 19:51, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it, try again. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 19:51, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

<3 it, Smuff. I think that's a much better idea, and we can have more comedy in the policies then (what's better than a few shoddy jokes in our rules?) YELLOWLUCARIO ^TALK 19:56, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to have it made more clear that this is a guideline, not a policy. As such, people are free to assume good faith or not, but it's implied that it is much better for them to do AGF, rather than always assume the worst out of their fellow editors. AGF is a tough state of mind to apply in some situations, and the current ambiguity of whether it is a guideline or a policy (it's a guideline, btw ;) ) doesn't help. 19:54, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Just because something is a guideline does not mean that it is acceptable to disregard.

Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 23:22, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work as a policy, because policies imply a punishment should they be broken, and we can't punish people because of the way they view a situation.

00:12, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Wiki rules are not a McDonald's combo menu where you can pick and choose which ones you want [to abide by].

Nowhere is it even specifically stated that COD:AGF is a guideline. In fact, site classification otherwise denotes it as wiki policy.

If COD:AGF is a guideline, which I would assume it is, community members are still expected to be in concordance with it.

guideline (n)

1. a general rule, principle, or piece of advice^[1]

2. an indication or outline of policy or conduct^[2]

Guidelines are listed alongside policies for a reason. There are no technicalities to be disputed here; everyone should be following guidelines just as they should be following policies.

Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 18:45, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

The problem people have with the term "policy" is that they think it can't be broken and therefore if it is broken, punishments must be issued. A user can choose to view a situation as a good faith attempt or a bad faith attempt. We can't punish them for their own views.

17:08, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

I haz just two questions:

Why should AGF be seen as a guideline, even if it's n our list of policies?
What is there not to like about AGF? (Just curious, since now Smuff has openly said he dislikes it.) Sgt. S.S. 19:58, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

We can't force people to assume good faith. We don't have many other guidelines, so it's thrown together with the policies. No harm done with that, is there? User:Sactage/s.js 21:04, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

COD:AGF is used for the wrong reasons, and usually anons aren't in good faith for an edit. I agree that it should be reworded or changed to Smuff's idea COD:ABF. /*\_Capoe_/*\ 20:13, October 1, 2011 (UTC) I see no problem with how the guideline is worded. In my current opinion, no change is needed. Shotrocket6 20:22, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

The way the guideline is worded means that quoting AGF in a war room topic means nothing of relevance. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 20:23, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Per Smuff and Callofduty4, I believe that AGF must be redefined. Changing it into a guidline like Callofduty4 said would be a good solution. TheDocRichtofen (Talk) 20:26, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Smuff's idea of "Assume Bad Faith" can be easily abused. Someone can request a ban on another use because the first user undid the second's edit, and so the second user can say, "this person hates me and will undo all of my edits!" or a new user who adds IRL or speculation because he hasn't read our policies can be banned because he added them in "bad faith." Option two is the best one. File:Ireland flag.gifCoaZ^TalkFile:Ireland flag.gif 21:19, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

COD:DGTS could be put into force. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 21:36, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Which needs something a bit more funny on it, and DGTS needs to be endorsed more as it is, IMO. YELLOWLUCARIO ^TALK 16:19, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

AGF is meant to apply to mainspace content and prevent users—unregistered, new and autoconfirmed alike—from being berating and/or blocked for making a low quality edit if it looks like anything other than of malicious intent. This is an edit of malicious intent. This is not. Both we would revert, but only one we would block for. If people really are misinterpreting it so much and using it where it has no business being used then that should be fixed (easily as simply putting a note at the top of the page that says it's meant to apply to mainspace articles), but it's doing its job well where it currently applies. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 23:10, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

So you suggest #2 I take it? Smuff^{[citation provided]} 23:13, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

#2 implies that it's not already for that purpose. But if I had to pick one of the three I would pick #2, yes.

Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 23:16, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

I was told that #3 wins. Which is why I vote for #2. 1358 ^(Talk) 23:14, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

I will go with Chia in this one. For example, AGF edits with Anons (That isn't obvious vandalism by a first look), new editors and such. So, by logic, AGF would be abolished in WR threads, and people if people throw it ~~It would annoy the hell out of Smuff~~ it wouldn't count as a vote/argument/etc. and the person would be given the chance to read DGTS or review the guideline in question, am I rite?.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}23:19, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

I cannot tell if you mean to be amusing by citing a satirist wiki's policy as a viable replacement. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 23:21, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

That's why I said "such as," probably along the lines of "If it looks it then it is." Either way, I'd probably be in favour of #2, #3 was just another possible route. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 23:32, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

I think option #1 seems like the best idea. Sgt. S.S. 11:20, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

1, personally. The thing to remember is that COD:AGF isn't something that can be broken -- that is, a user cannot be punished for assuming bad faith. Where AGF matters, however, is in the civil manner in which users interact with each other for the general positive productivity of wiki. An editor should not assume that a bad edit is an attempt at vandalism, nor should an experienced editor treat an anonymous editor with less respect than anyone else. This level of civil behaviour should apply to the entire wiki, and serves to remind all users, new and old, of their responsibility as editors of the same wiki community. --Scottie theNerd 07:10, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with option #3. Any of these choices will do in my personal opinion. I like scottie's explanation above^. Rambo362 20:34, October 3, 2011 (UTC)