[WikiEN-l] "Assume good faith" is no longer policy.

[Peter Ansell]

On 19/12/06, Abigail Brady <morwen at evilmagic.org> wrote:
> On 12/19/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes. AGF can be thought of as a nicer way of saying "Never assume
> > malice when incompetence will suffice."
>
> For historical interest, you may which to see the initial version of
> AGF that I wrote.  It wasn't some "let's all hug and be happy" type
> thing, it was some practical notes about how assuming good faith is a
> good debating tactic because you can give your opponent Enough Rope
> (tm).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith&oldid=3024815
>
> --
> Abi

I don't think it is okay to assume malice. If you think something is
malice you should have some proof, including an effort to discern the
nature of the action. I guess it depends also on whether you are
thinking about the idea in the context of a discussion, or in the
context of vandalism on articles or otherwise.

Peter Ansell