On 8/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Bollocks it does. This fallacious view seems to be held by many on AFD
- where saying someone's deletion nomination was completely
wrongheaded, misguided and stupid will get some idiot claiming that you have "assumed bad faith" of the nominator. No, I've assumed bad *judgement*, with the nomination as the evidence.
I recently said, on the Wiki: "I do not see how examining and ultimately concluding that an offered opinion is meritless is in any way a failure to assume good faith. I fully accept that a misguided opinion can be offered in good faith; however, what matters is whether the opinion has merit, not whether it is faithfully held."
This led to me being accused even more loudly of failing to assume good faith. Apparently "assume good faith" is now code for "speak not ill of anyone, nor of their ideas, nor their contributions".
Wikipedia is not therapy. Wikipedia does note exist for the purpose of validating the feelings of our myriad contributors. It is not our responsibility to make everyone feel loved.
Kelly
Kelly