Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith

Looking for your opinion on why I deleted my edit

I just found out that 294 characters for Copyright in South Korea were deleted from Literature document. I think the content is reliable enough because the source was accurately indicated. Bunsik (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I see that the explanation for the revert is not "copyright" but "unsourced." Take a look at WP:YANARS. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for input regarding assuming good faith in a talk page dispute

Improper venue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a discussion and dispute regarding addressing a talk page post by an ip that may or may not be trolling or a legitimate request. Your input at User talk:Thinker78#Chemtrails is requested; cordial, objective input is welcome. I have to point out that I am not forum shopping. If I don't publicize the discussion in a few different relevant venues I don't get much general uninvolved community input, which is desirable to provide additional insights instead of only localized discussion which may not even properly clarify things. Per WP:SEEKHELP, If your dispute is related to a certain content area, you can ask your question or publicize a related discussion on the talk page of relevant WikiProjects[a] or other pages. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC) You've got three admins giving you advice and you have been told you'll be blocked if you continue enabling trolls. So that's really the end of it. If you think all the admins are wrong you probably need to go to WP:AN. Bon courage (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC) @Bon courage The end of it will be determined by the community not you, an involved editor who was using uncivil language. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC) The community has spoken (I now count three admins and four non-admins). It's just you are forum shopping rather than WP:HEARing the message. My advice is to drop this and do something more gainful, as the road you are on is unlikely to lead to a good place. Bon courage (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC) 1. The suggestion that a centralized discussion about project policy should take place on a user's talk page is just, bizarre. 2. This user has a history of waging pitched battles over the reversion of IP editors' troll-like comments, going back nearly 2 years, e.g. here. It may behoove the project to discuss an editing restriction once the current block expires. Zaathras (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Quite apart from anything else, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assume good faith page. So an editor raising a conduct grievance here is off-topic & disruptive. Suggest close. Bon courage (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024

remove "WP:AFG" redirects here. For the Afghanistan WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Afghanistan. because WP:AFG no longer redirects to WP:AGF. 96.64.248.125 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done — WP:AFG's target was erroneously changed and should still direct here. It's been fixed, now. Thank you for bringing it up. – Primium (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF is an oversimplification which prevents many useful things from happening and causes some bad things to happen

WP:AGF is an oversimplification which prevents improvements in various areas. It presumes that there are only two possibilities:

1. A ideal editor, where the only influence on their editing is the objectives of Wikipedia
2. A "bad faith" editor, who does "bad faith" editing. Not specific on what that is, but it's clearly really bad.

In reality, most editors are somewhere in between. Their edits are somewhat influenced by biases, advocacies, politics and other things. Yet, whenever someone addresses this issue on policy in general, or in an individual cases where a preponderance of evidence says that they are exhibiting these (no big deal) "only human" traits, whoever brings it up is accused of violating WP:AGF and of making a severe accusation. They are supposed to assume the often-unrealistic incorrect ideal of #1 unless they are building an ANI type case (e.g. building a case with diffs) alleging a severe violation. And so contrary to it's ideals, wp:AGF is commonly weaponized or used contrary to it's goals. And useful discussions on the above "no big deal/only human" issues are prevented. IMO we should evolve this in a more realistic direction that acknowledges these realities. North8000 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether the pushback "whenever someone addresses this issue" arises because the addressing is framed as "you are biased [or being political]" rather than "your edit does not provide a neutral point of view." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The gentle cases of expressing concern (e.g. about biased participation when such is evident) generally don't occur because of this guideline. Regarding when wp:AGF is actually invoked, IMO the most common reason is that there is already a tussle going on and WP:AGF is a handy weapon to gain advantage in that tussle. North8000 (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

A common version is accusations of left-wing bias. That particular version of assuming bad faith violates NPA by invoking an editor's political persuasion to undermine them and dismiss their editing. It is covered by some of the principles explained here: Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias (which is linked in Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus #61. It's a nasty application of poisoning the well. It's best kept away from article talk pages and reserved for user talk pages and, when justified, with diffs in reports on drama boards.

It also reveals an ignorance of sourcing requirements, and how, because there is a paucity of right-wing reliable sources for political topics, there will naturally be a seeming "overuse" of left-wing sources, simply because the right wing has become radicalized, moved far to the right, and thus abandoned the field of accurate coverage to the left-wing sources. Very few right-wing sources are left that are moderate and reliable.

It is sourcing, not editors, that create the left-wing bias in articles, and that bias is factual, not just left-wing opinion. This is related to the fact that "Reality has a well known liberal bias" (Stephen Colbert) and that "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias" (Paul Krugman). Right-wing editors who fight to RGW make attempts to "neutralize" such content so it's NPOV, but they thus reveal their lack of understanding of NPOV, neutrality, and factual reporting. They want to create a false balance.

Proving another editor has political POV is nonsensical. We all have them, and honesty and openness, unlike sneakily hiding one's POV, should not be punished. On the contrary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this came from. My main point was common weaponization of wp:AGF, and my "only human" comments/examples were not focused on any particular area including the one that is the topic of your post. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

As you point out, we're all biased about almost everything to some extent. That bias becomes "evident" when an edit fails the NPOV test. Expressing gentle concern about another editor's bias is likely to be counterproductive - shifting the discussion from whether an edit presents a NPOV to whether another editor is excessively biased (compare Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Precisely the sort of outcome AGF is designed to prevent.

As AGF (slightly edited) says "it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives biases, which might intensify resentments all around." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)