GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

Hello there! We are conducting a survey to better understand the user experience in making a first edit. If you have ever made an edit on Gamepedia, please fill out the survey. Thank you!

GuildWiki talk:Assume good faith

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Man. If only we had some recent examples of where this article would've been really, really useful.. ;D I know you're looking for folk to contribute, Tanaric, but I think you've done really well covering the bases with these articles. --Nunix 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd absolutely love to write them all myself... but I feel as if that would invalidate the sentiment. "Here are the community standards, written entirely by Tanaric."
Though, I didn't write this one, I ripped it from Wikipedia. —Tanaric 17:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"Here are the community standards, written entirely by Tanaric" hahah love that one ^^ — Skuld 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Always assume GOOD FAITH! — Rapta Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 19:19, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

Clean implementation[edit source]

this is a clean room implementation of the existing policy. i kept them up side by side while reviewing to make sure i got the vital points, but no text was copied, and no phrases were reused. please review for accuracy and correctness. --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 00:26, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

I like this quite a bit, and have moved it in place as a draft policy to replace the old one. —Tanaric 15:08, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

easily verifiable[edit source]

What exactly is meant by this section? It seems a bit unclear. Could someone perhaps expand upon it?— JediRogue JediRogueSig.jpg 15:19, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Done, though I'm not sure the section belongs in this policy at all. —Tanaric 17:00, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
it wasn't in the original, but it seems a good counter point. if we're assuming good faith, then we should do our best to honor that assumption, with edits that are easily verifiable (think armor prices, instead of ecto prices) or well explained. the idea behind it was to make the assumption of good faith easier to prove. --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 08:06, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Official[edit source]

Needs to be marked as... PvXWiki thinks its official, and most(I think) of the user base believes so. THere are no issues with it that I see. ~~ User:Frvwfr2 frvwfr2 (T/C/RFA) 16:42, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Proposed Adendum[edit source]

After reading the talkpage of GW:SCREENS, which has sat in the 'proposed' category for ages, and noticing Entropys comment of "I think it could just be merged into the already-existing AGF. It honestly isn't that much different - this tells you when to AGF in a dispute and what to do about it.", and also in light of recent spates of anons adding incorrect/implausible information to articles, I would like to propose an addendum to this policy, something along the lines of:

"In case of content dispute, where an editor has added information to an article, and a general consensus is reached that this information is implausible, for example a claim that the Rabbit in Pre-Searing has been observed to use Spectral Agony, editors should provide credible evidence, preferably in the form of screenshots, to support this claim. While it is encouraged for any user, regardless of their beleifs concerning the validity of the questioned edit, to seek evidence to confirm or deny the truthfulness of the disputed edit, the primary responsibility for this should fall to the editor who added the disputed information. If no evidence can be found by the community to support the validity of the disputed content, and the editor who added it has not explained their reasoning or provided evidence, then this edit can be removed (assuming reasonable attempt to reach consensus has been made on the article in question's talkpage) except in cases where this would breach GW:1RV. Conversely, Screenshots, or other credible evidence, may be used (in case of content dispute) to disprove information in an article which has generally been accepted to be correct, but has not been tested."

I though of going into more detail to cover further possible uses of evidence to resolve content disputes, or cover more possible eventualities, but i would like to see peoples opinions on what i have so far before spending too much time trying to perfect this. I have bolded some parts of the text simply to try and avoid having to quote myself later, i do not feel that this conflicts with the current state of AGF as it specifically states that evidence should only be requested in case of content dispute, and where a consensus has been formed (on the articles talkpage) that information added to an article is implausible. Opinions so far, anyone?--Cobalt6.jpg - (Talk/Contribs) 19:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

/agree. 100%. +1.--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 19:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You'd need some timelines before this becomes actual policy (how long does a user have to provide evidence?), but I don't see anything inherently wrong with it. As long as we don't have "pix or it didn't happen" as the new talk page tagline, it should be fine. -Auron 15:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, good point about timing, I'm not sure it would be entirely necessary to specify a specific time though, as such er, specifity(? - i just made that word up) seems to be largely avoided in policies, presumably because individual users are trusted to make judgements reasonably sensibly (i.e. following the 'spirit' of the policy). Personally I would favour a clause along the lines of "consensus should be reached that sufficient time has passed for the editor who added the disputed content (or any other user) to have provided screenshots or other credible evidence confirming the validity of said content" Though perhaps with a more objective "In most cases, atleast X days should be permitted for this to occur" kind of thing added on the end, probably with the need to specify that "If the editor requests more time to provide this evidence and has provided appropriate explanation, then this should be allowed (within reason)." Do you think an exact number of days should be specified, and if so how many would you say is reasonable (assuming the editor who added the disputed content makes no further comment on it)?
And i agree totally that we don't want a "pix or it didn't happen" approach, as suggseted here in the initial form of GW:SCREENS, before it got the er, Entropy treatment :P, as that would completely conflict with the existing form of AGF and be detrimental to the wiki if such an attitude was to be widely adopted.--Cobalt6.jpg - (Talk/Contribs) 18:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that this addendum is way too lengthy, long, and not really related to AGF. AGF is about how to treat other users, not how to treat their actions. IMHO. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 19:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, has there been recent situations on the wiki where having some guideline such as the proposed addendum would've helped? -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 19:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Meh, i noticed a lot more reverts for 'adding incorrect infomration to articles' recently, as well as bans for the same reason with 'repeatedly' tacked on the front, i beleive auron banned one of them himself, actually--Cobalt6.jpg - (Talk/Contribs) 11:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
So do you think the proposed would have reduced the number of reverts/bans (keeping those edits and promote discussion), or do you think it would have stopped ppl from adding incorrect info repeatedly? If they weren't even attempting to discuss things, then having this addendum probably wouldn't do much good, whereas if there had been discussions with those people, then I'm surprised it got to the point of needing to ban. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 03:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No there was no discussion, i merely suggested this to try and empower users to reslove content disputes where 1RV would normally prevent things from going anywhere. And i agree that perhaps it is too lengthy, but its merely an addendum which can be cited in case of dispute, it is unlikely to be need to be read in great detail, the gereral idea that "screenshots are an acceptable form of evidence in resolving content disputes" is fairly obvious, i just tried to cover every possible eventuality to avoid ambiguity. At the moment i see people occasionally linking to GW:SCREENS in cases of disputes (thats how i found that policy anyway), that policy isn't a policy at all, so linking to it doesn't do much good - i just thought that therefore it might be better to make it official, while avoiding conflicting with any current policies--Cobalt6.jpg - (Talk/Contribs) 10:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's good to try and promote discussion where there isn't one, but the lack of discussion tends to indicate ppl aren't reading (at least if ppl are getting banned for 1RV, I expect those ppl are already getting warnings and being told to discuss things). If those ppl aren't reading, adding stuff to AGF and linking to it might not really help. Anyways, currently I've added one sentence to the "Easily verifiable" section of the AGF Corollaries. If people aren't discussing at all, my opinion is that having additional text in the policy isn't going to do much good. Whereas if people are discussing but just can't coming to agreement, what we need would be a general education on verifiability, not a policy addendum. My 2 cents anyways. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 11:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I said, "this tells you when to AGF in a dispute and what to do about it"; I think that your proposed addemdum kind of misses the point. GW:SCREENS by itself is a sufficiently detailed and specific policy that it ought to be made independent. However, in principle/spirit it is very close to AGF. That is why I made such comment. Therefore I believe that they can easily be integrated...however it ought to be more along the lines of "credible evidence like screenshots boosts the probability of AGF-ing" and "taking screenshots helps raise one's credibility without raising tempers - thus it is an effective way to resolve a dispute without assuming bad faith", etc. Nothing as long, lengthly, and thorough as the GW:SCREENS currently is. Perhaps it could be kept as a sub-page, though. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 06:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the people who have been banned for inserting false information, sufficiently outlandish claims are obviously not made in good faith. One such person edited a page to claim that ectos drop in Shing Jea and not in the Underworld, and several other edits about on par with that. Other such banned people have replaced random words in articles by profanities. There is a difference between inserting information that might plausibly be true but turns out to be false, and inserting information so ridiculous that most players would know it is false without even having to look it up. Quizzical 07:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly so. Assuming good faith also means you trust the other editors' ability to distinguish between possibility and nonsense. Felix Omni Signature.png 07:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. I believe AGF is only about intent, not about correctness, capability, or competence. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 08:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Um, so, to re-cap, after my adding that one sentence about screenshots under the "Easily verifiable" section, what do ppl think should still be done? -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 08:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well i think that aslong as there is something which can be quoted in AGF to the effect that screenshots can be used to add weight to a claim, then alls good. Therefore, in answer to your question I'd say 'probably nothing'. In truth people who deliberately add ridiculous information to articles are unlikely to read policies anyway, i merely wanted to include something so that people no longer needed to use redundant GW:SCREENS links - i.e. to make it more, er, official. However in practice it isnt going to make much difference, so - yeah.--Cobalt6.jpg - (Talk/Contribs) 11:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)