Debate Principle: Assume good faith

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

...When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can. Be civil and follow dispute resolution processes, rather than attacking editors or edit warring with them. If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns. Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives (which mention would tend to exacerbate resentments all around).


This is one of the principles wikipedia asks its contributors to apply when working with other editors. On a meta level, we should all apply this principle, even in politics, because we all want what's best for the country even though we tend to vilify our ideological opponents.

Folksonomies: centrism

/law, govt and politics (0.491888)
/business and industrial/business operations/management/project management (0.397547)
/religion and spirituality (0.255797)

good faith (0.951782 (positive:0.563601)), dispute resolution processes (0.833795 (neutral:0.000000)), fundamental principle (0.695163 (positive:0.721084)), fellow Wikipedians (0.672335 (negative:-0.446947)), specific diffs (0.658747 (negative:-0.372216)), ideological opponents (0.656342 (negative:-0.524960)), bad conduct (0.651085 (negative:-0.561274)), meta level (0.636168 (neutral:0.000000)), relevant evidence (0.631790 (negative:-0.372216)), bad faith (0.606934 (negative:-0.561274)), principles wikipedia (0.605442 (neutral:0.000000)), doubts (0.530031 (negative:-0.409581)), project (0.502427 (negative:-0.135929)), editors (0.499210 (negative:-0.486288)), people (0.497529 (positive:0.003610)), edits (0.463829 (positive:0.691624)), assumption (0.459989 (positive:0.329181)), motives (0.457120 (negative:-0.221296)), doubt (0.456619 (positive:0.436047)), mention (0.454498 (negative:-0.463426)), edit (0.449591 (negative:-0.486288)), editors\ (0.449149 (positive:0.329181)), comments (0.449056 (positive:0.691625)), beginning. (0.448729 (negative:-0.552365)), contributors (0.448626 (neutral:0.000000)), concerns (0.445900 (negative:-0.412825)), basis (0.444657 (negative:-0.412825)), politics (0.443466 (neutral:0.000000))

Wikipedia:Company (0.939072 (positive:0.084360)), Wikipedians:Person (0.582427 (negative:-0.446947))

Legal terms (0.945202): dbpedia
Good faith (0.893550): dbpedia | freebase
Dispute resolution (0.886508): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Bad faith (0.865950): dbpedia | freebase
Editing (0.830826): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Epistemology (0.794964): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Doubt (0.785269): dbpedia | freebase | opencyc
Question (0.737233): dbpedia | freebase

 Wikipedia:Assume good faith
Electronic/World Wide Web>Wiki:   (October 2010)Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikimedia Foundation Inc., Retrieved on 1969-12-31
  • Source Material []
  • Folksonomies: netiquette


    01 JAN 2010


    Arguments for centrism. Why balance is necessary. Include here any argument against any form of absolutism.
    Folksonomies: politics centrism
    Folksonomies: politics centrism