Wikibooks:Assume good faith
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
This proposed policy explains why Wikibookians should assume good faith, even when the actions of other users may seem to cause trouble or harm, and ways that you can correct mistakes without assuming bad faith. Actions applicable to users with bad intention are defined in other policies and guidelines.
Contents |
[edit] Assume Good Faith
To assume good faith is to assume that people have good intentions, are civil and are here to help. This is a fundamental principle of Wikibooks, because anyone with Internet access can and is encouraged to contribute to Wikibooks. If this assumption was false, then Wikibooks would not work.
Actions which may appear inconsistent with good faith may sometimes seem like obvious cases of bad intentions, but even people whom you disagree with or who are hard to work with, may have good intentions. Everyone makes mistakes, and sometimes a mistake can give the impression of bad faith even when there is good intent. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, be bold and correct it without criticizing or reverting all changes. When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Instead of telling people to "assume good faith", consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating.
[edit] Correcting mistakes
People new to Wikibooks often make mistakes or fail to respect community norms. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their notion of how things should function, especially if they notice that there is already some level of disagreement over the policy in question. Similarly, many newcomers want to have their contributions to books accepted without question, especially which pertain to fields in which they are knowledgeable. Behaviors arising from these perspectives, while perhaps misguided, are usually not malicious and should not be treated as such.
When someone repeatedly makes mistakes, use the appropriate discussion page, don't engage in a reversion war or revert changes. Reverting changes should be an infrequent response, done only to deal with vandalism.
Here are some examples concerning the correction of mistakes:
- A user added out-of-scope material. If there is confusion over whether some material belongs in a module, try moving that material to the discussion page, or to some other module or book where it is in scope, mentioning in the edit summary where it went to, instead of just deleting it.
- A user added several red links. Some users like accidental linking; they put double-square brackets around words for which they want pages, like they would do at Wikipedia, unaware that modules at Wikibooks should belong to some book and that books should be self-contained. You can fix the links to point to a module or section within the book it belongs to, temperately point to some external websites with more information, remove the link and provide the missing information, or add {{dewikify}} to encourage someone else to fix it.
- A user created pages in the wrong place. Some users do not know naming policy; you can read that policy for suggestions on handling badly-named pages.
- A user employs incorrect or substandard syntax. Some users only write in plain text or HTML. You can fix it, for example by replacing <br><br> with blank lines; you can also tell users to read Help:Editing or Meta:Help:Editing.
- A user changes the spelling of words, but the old spellings were correct. Wikibooks does not have an official or standardized variant of English. Some users are not familiar with spellings outside their home region and will unnecessarily "correct" them. You can check a dictionary like Wiktionary or other major English dictionaries for variant spellings.
[edit] Bad Faith
Wikibookians are not required to continue to assume good faith when, despite the community's best possible efforts, there is clear evidence someone's intentions do not coincide with Wikibooks' goals. A reasonable attempt must be made to talk it over, before bad faith is assumed.
Be careful of assuming bad faith, claiming bad faith without reason in itself may be perceived as an act of bad faith against your fellow Wikibookians. When in doubt, it is better to assume good faith and ask for clarification. If you remain unsatisfied use the decision making process to resolve problems and be prepared to discuss your side of the dispute.
This policy is not a shield against people ignoring their own bad actions. Instead of telling other people to "assume good faith" when they claim that you cause problems, you should also assume that they are trying in good faith to help you. Bad faith actions are generally covered by Wikibooks' policies and guidelines or defined as such by society (ie: lie, cheat, threat). Wikibook Administrators can block users from editing Wikibooks on the basis of bad behavior or bad intentions.
Any Wikibookian can report actions that go against policies or guidelines, but should do so with an open mind. Official policies and guidelines exist as a reflection of what the community wants. If the community no longer feels a policy or guideline makes sense, the policy or guideline can be changed to reflect that. Don't assume bad faith, try to use policies or guidelines to game the system, or wikilawyer. Instead you should explain your position, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This is true for everyone, especially new contributors.
