On 12/18/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/18/06, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I haven't participated in any of the discussion about Assume Good Faith, but in my experience, I've usually encountered it when users quote it to
claim
that criticism of them is equivalent to not assuming good faith.
Does it really solve more problems than it causes?
I'd say it causes more problems than it solves, precisely because it's an instant "veto" to valid questions of whether someone is trying to POV push or has a conflict of interest.
It only works effectively that way if people are naive about it.
I see people trying to use it that way, but it's generally really clear very early on that it's being used falsely as a shield, and most experienced admins and longtime editors seem to recognize that pretty well.
The policy doesn't say how long we have to keep assuming it, so people's general common sense seems to work to deal with that.