Ron Ritzman wrote:
How would you define "good faith" in this context? I would say that if a contributor continues to do "X" after several good faith "please don't do X" requests from reasonable people, then that person is no longer a "good faith contributor" and any of his contributions with "X" in them are not "good faith contributions".
I don't think that follows.
To me, acting in good faith only means that you are well-intentioned. There are a lot of reasons why a person might not follow advice that you see as reasonable; a lack of good faith is only one of them.
To come to a conclusion about somebody else's motivations, which is something you can never know for sure, is rarely something they will enjoy. You could well be wrong, and even when you aren't, you've created ground for an endlessly unwinnable argument.
More importantly, people are creatures of context. If you treat them like they are good people who have made perfectly reasonable mistakes and just need a little help to fit in, they are much more likely to start acting that way. Act like somebody who's in a fight, and they will obligingly step up and fight you back. Get them mad enough and they'll do it forever.
To me, that's the magic of AGF. Most of the time, most people really are acting in good faith. By treating them that way, we avoid letting miscommunication, misunderstanding, or their good-faith flubs wreck the relationship. And when people come to us with mischief in their hearts, treating them as if the meant well can bring out the side of them that does mean well.
That's not to say that we shouldn't boot people that are hopelessly disruptive. We've got an encyclopedia to build. But we should do it with "a countenance more in sorrow than in anger," and without impugning their motives. Not just because it's the kind thing, but because also because it's the practical thing.
William