Assume good faith

This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline.

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell:

Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that fellow editors working on the project are trying to improve it, not harm it.
If criticism is necessary, seek clarification through discussion rather than assuming wrongdoing.

百度对于吴先生提到的高层居民用水问题，郏县住房和城乡规划建设局也在一份说明中提到：该小区配有二次加压设备，能够保证小区内最高楼层用户用水正常，不存在水压不够问题。

Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. Otherwise, a project like Wikipedia would have been doomed from the beginning.

When disagreement occurs, try your best to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.

When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, 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 might intensify resentments all around.

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism), nor does assuming good faith prohibit discussion and criticism, as even editors who try to improve Wikipedia may not have the information or skills necessary to succeed in their good-faith goals. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such.

About good faith

Everyone makes mistakes, both behavioral (such as personal attacks) and content-based (such as adding original research). Most of the time, we can correct such mistakes with simple reminders. However, there will be disagreements on Wikipedia for which no policy or guideline has an easy answer. When disagreements happen, ill intent may not be involved. Keep a cool head, and consider dispute resolution if disagreements seem intractable; many of them are not.

Violation of policies—such as engaging in sockpuppetry, violating consensus, and so on—may be perpetrated in either good or bad faith. There are processes for dealing with all of these, and sanctions for repeated violation of policy will apply regardless of whether bad faith was involved or not.

Good faith and newcomers

It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules, but may nonetheless turn out to be valuable contributors.

A newcomer's behavior probably seems appropriate to them, and a problem in that regard usually indicates unawareness or misunderstanding of Wikipedian culture. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their notion of how things should function, especially if they notice that there is already some level of disagreement over the policy in question. Similarly, many newcomers want to have their contributions to articles accepted without question, especially those which pertain to subjects on which they have extensive knowledge. Behaviors arising from these perspectives, while possibly misguided, are usually not malicious and should not be treated as such. Many new users who lack an intuitive grasp of Wikipedia customs are gradually brought around, once the logic behind these customs becomes clearer to them.

Good faith and copyright

Shortcut

WP:AGFC

When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. Good-faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices.

Good faith and administrative action

When dealing with potential breaches of policy, administrators should not assume editors have breached policy in bad faith without evidence to that effect.

What good faith is not

Shortcut

WP:GFISNOT

Many people misunderstand Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy as meaning "assume another editor performed due diligence" or "assume blind faith" regarding a reference, editor, or content. However, the actual intention is closer to "presume good intent", which does not mean "I do not have access to a source, so I 'assume good faith' about the source's content," nor does it mean "an editor has removed unreferenced material, so I 'assume good faith' that they've performed due diligence to ensure there are no reliable sources available."

This policy also does not mean you should ignore clear evidence of disruptive behavior or violations of site guidelines or accept all edits without question. Some bad actors may insist that trust in them should be immutable, per "assume good faith", even when there is evidence against this. However, editors should remember to not disregard patterns of harmful editing, nor should they overlook obvious attempts to deceive, vandalize, or push a biased agenda. Instead, "assume good faith" encourages editors to start with the belief that others are trying to improve Wikipedia. When you encounter a problematic edit, it's important to investigate and address it, but do so with the mindset that mistakes can happen and not every error is made with malicious intent. The purpose of assuming good faith is to maintain a collaborative and respectful editing environment.

Demonstrate good faith

Shortcut

WP:DGF

In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. Showing good faith is not required, but it aids smooth and successful interactions with editors.

Dealing with bad faith

Shortcut

WP:BF

Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, attack others, or lose your cool over it. It is ultimately much easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies if one side is clearly acting appropriately throughout.

Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence.

Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "assume good faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others.

Accusing others of bad faith

Shortcut

WP:AOBF

Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs. Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute. Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack. The result could be accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle of unhelpful accusations and counter-accusations.

v t e Essays influenced by the assume good faith guideline
Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Assume
Non-humorous essays	Assume high intelligence Assume ignorance Assume no clue Assume the assumption of assuming good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Don't assume
Humorous essays	Assume bad faith Assume faith Assume good wraith Assume stupidity Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith

婀娜多姿是什么意思	英红九号是什么茶	哈尔滨有什么好吃的	完美收官是什么意思	怕热是什么原因
热玛吉是什么意思	现在摆摊卖什么东西最好卖	head是什么牌子	gm什么意思	心脏缺血吃什么补得快
吐纳是什么意思	滑膜炎吃什么药能治好	中空是什么意思	反应蛋白偏高说明什么	上海话小赤佬是什么意思
后顶焦度是什么意思	乳头湿疹用什么药	葡萄糖属于什么糖	口腔溃疡吃什么水果好得快	吃什么避孕药可以推迟月经

婴幼儿吃什么奶粉好hcv8jop1ns3r.cn	修罗道是什么意思hcv8jop0ns6r.cn	aqi是什么意思hcv8jop6ns2r.cn	加盟店是什么意思hcv9jop8ns3r.cn	头顶疼是什么原因引起的hcv8jop3ns4r.cn
什么食物降胆固醇最好hcv7jop7ns1r.cn	正月初十是什么星座hcv8jop5ns0r.cn	营养性贫血是什么意思hcv9jop4ns9r.cn	口苦口臭吃什么药效果最佳hcv8jop3ns6r.cn	心跳快吃什么药hcv8jop5ns3r.cn
肋间神经炎吃什么药xjhesheng.com	莲子心泡水喝有什么功效和作用96micro.com	良去掉一点读什么hcv8jop6ns4r.cn	指甲月牙代表什么hcv9jop4ns8r.cn	什么的脸庞hcv8jop5ns5r.cn
什么加什么等于红色hcv8jop9ns9r.cn	女人吃什么hcv7jop4ns5r.cn	绿色加红色是什么颜色hcv7jop5ns6r.cn	3.22什么星座hcv8jop2ns4r.cn	什么人不能喝桑黄dajiketang.com

马德里动物园的“熊猫姐妹”

About good faith

Good faith and newcomers

Good faith and copyright

Good faith and administrative action

What good faith is not

Demonstrate good faith

Dealing with bad faith

Accusing others of bad faith

See also

Guidelines

Essays

Articles