On 6/25/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
The issue of editors who don't have a clue
about the topic can be a
problem, but one which is distinct from having no clue about the
project. The risk here is for a project to so protect its way of doing
things that it becomes authoritarian. While we cannot accept every
piece of idiocy that is added to an article, we still need to make room
for new ideas, and, even more importantly, newcomers need to feel
welcome and a part of the decision making process.
This is much in accordance with what I am inadequately expressing. A
couple of times here people have used "assume good faith" not in cause
of civility, but in what amounts to making statements about human
nature. In that wise we cannot afford it; a more realistic level of
pessimism is called for.
"Assume good faith" has a very broad application., but like any
assumption is rebuttable. Statements about human nature are subject to
the assumption as much as any other. Many such statements reflect the
culture that a person comes from. Something that is perfectly
acceptable in one person's culture can sound outrageous in another.
People use words differently as a recent discussion over the word
"menial" showed; the derogatory overtones are only there in US usages of
the word.
Assuming good faith requires that we attempt to understand where the
speaker is coming from before taking ooffence to his comments.
Ec