631:(no big deal) "only human" traits, whoever brings it up is accused of violating WP:AGF and of making a severe accusation. They are supposed to assume the often-unrealistic incorrect ideal of #1 unless they are building an ANI type case (e.g. building a case with diffs) alleging a severe violation. And so contrary to it's ideals, wp:AGF is commonly weaponized or used contrary to it's goals. And useful discussions on the above "no big deal/only human" issues are prevented. IMO we should evolve this in a more realistic direction that acknowledges these realities.
227:
119:
519:
168:
150:
576:
630:
In reality, most editors are somewhere in between. Their edits are somewhat influenced by biases, advocacies, politics and other things. Yet, whenever someone addresses this issue on policy in general, or in an individual cases where a preponderance of evidence says that they are exhibiting these
703:
It also reveals an ignorance of sourcing requirements, and how, because there is a paucity of right-wing reliable sources for political topics, there will naturally be a seeming "overuse" of left-wing sources, simply because the right wing has become radicalized, moved far to the right, and thus
670:
The gentle cases of expressing concern (e.g. about biased participation when such is evident) generally don't occur because of this guideline. Regarding when wp:AGF is actually invoked, IMO the most common reason is that there is already a tussle going on and WP:AGF is a handy weapon to gain
848:
I actually think this is probably the most inspiring and convincing argument in the entire page. At least, when I was a new and younger editor, I remember being inspired by the idea it proposes: that most human beings are inclined to help each other, rather than hurt each other, and
769:
As you point out, we're all biased about almost everything to some extent. That bias becomes "evident" when an edit fails the NPOV test. Expressing gentle concern about another editor's bias is likely to be counterproductive - shifting the discussion from whether an
469:
1. The suggestion that a centralized discussion about project policy should take place on a user's talk page is just, bizarre. 2. This user has a history of waging pitched battles over the reversion of IP editors' troll-like comments, going back nearly 2 years, e.g.
376:. If I don't publicize the discussion in a few different relevant venues I don't get much general uninvolved community input, which is desirable to provide additional insights instead of only localized discussion which may not even properly clarify things. Per
687:
A common version is accusations of left-wing bias. That particular version of assuming bad faith violates NPA by invoking an editor's political persuasion to undermine them and dismiss their editing. It is covered by some of the principles explained here:
611:
723:). Right-wing editors who fight to RGW make attempts to "neutralize" such content so it's NPOV, but they thus reveal their lack of understanding of NPOV, neutrality, and factual reporting. They want to create a false balance.
920:
The current wording is fine. There are plenty of ways to convey the same message, which is that
Knowledge would not exist if most people were trying to hurt the project (in fact, in the edit right before yours, someone had
750:
I'm not sure where this came from. My main point was common weaponization of wp:AGF, and my "only human" comments/examples were not focused on any particular area including the one that is the topic of your post.
405:
You've got three admins giving you advice and you have been told you'll be blocked if you continue enabling trolls. So that's really the end of it. If you think all the admins are wrong you probably need to go to
489:
Quite apart from anything else, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assume good faith page. So an editor raising a conduct grievance here is off-topic & disruptive. Suggest close.
991:
If you want to include the "proof" thought because it is inspiring then let's state that thought plainly. Regardless, let's not keep the unclear "doomed" text just because it has moss growing on it. -
333:
239:
988:" (italics in the original). The italicized text is your interpretation of "Otherwise, a project like Knowledge would have been doomed from the beginning." I do not share your interpretation.
350:
642:
808:
In that case typically I wouldn't wouldn't call it "pushback", I'd call it an effective tactic (= weaponization of this guideline) in the tussle that is happening at the article.
961:
I don't see what's wrong with the current form. The "doomed" phrasing is the one that's persisted for decades, and I see no compelling reason for us to rephrase it on a whim now.
726:
Proving another editor has political POV is nonsensical. We all have them, and honesty and openness, unlike sneakily hiding one's POV, should not be punished. On the contrary. --
400:
483:
384:
If your dispute is related to a certain content area, you can ask your question or publicize a related discussion on the talk page of relevant WikiProjects or other pages.
707:
It is sourcing, not editors, that create the left-wing bias in articles, and that bias is factual, not just left-wing opinion. This is related to the fact that "
906:
Shall we should change the "doomed" sentence to your "proof" sentence? Or will you argue that old text is, by virtue of its age, perfect in every way? -
39:
368:
There is a discussion and dispute regarding addressing a talk page post by an ip that may or may not be trolling or a legitimate request. Your input at
984:, you say "I remember being inspired by the idea it proposes: that most human beings are inclined to help each other, rather than hurt each other, and
567:
509:
689:
700:. It's best kept away from article talk pages and reserved for user talk pages and, when justified, with diffs in reports on drama boards.
186:
704:
abandoned the field of accurate coverage to the left-wing sources. Very few right-wing sources are left that are moderate and reliable.
290:
285:
280:
273:
268:
263:
256:
251:
246:
74:
819:
801:
682:
665:
450:
the message. My advice is to drop this and do something more gainful, as the road you are on is unlikely to lead to a good place.
947:
I am suggesting changing the "doomed" sentence to your "proof" sentence. That would give the text the meaning you say it has. -
846:
Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. Otherwise, a project like
Knowledge would have been doomed from the beginning.
605:
459:
441:
419:
499:
175:
155:
1000:
970:
956:
942:
915:
708:
619:
is an oversimplification which prevents improvements in various areas. It presumes that there are only two possibilities:
80:
762:
745:
866:
559:
922:
837:
833:
716:
648:
I'm wondering whether the pushback "whenever someone addresses this issue" arises because the addressing is framed as "
841:
446:
The community has spoken (I now count three admins and four non-admins). It's just you are forum shopping rather than
428:
The end of it will be determined by the community not you, an involved editor who was using uncivil language. Thanks.
612:
WP:AGF is an oversimplification which prevents many useful things from happening and causes some bad things to happen
587:'s target was erroneously changed and should still direct here. It's been fixed, now. Thank you for bringing it up.
885:
346:
626:
A "bad faith" editor, who does "bad faith" editing. Not specific on what that is, but it's clearly really bad.
20:
779:
69:
827:
130:
323:
60:
24:
693:
342:
369:
996:
952:
911:
797:
661:
185:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
563:
525:
548:"WP:AFG" redirects here. For the Afghanistan WikiProject, see Knowledge:WikiProject Afghanistan.
474:. It may behoove the project to discuss an editing restriction once the current block expires.
815:
758:
678:
638:
495:
455:
415:
136:
785:
As AGF (slightly edited) says "it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning
98:
8:
992:
948:
907:
873:
793:
657:
438:
397:
373:
50:
623:
A ideal editor, where the only influence on their editing is the objectives of
Knowledge
737:
697:
479:
377:
306:
90:
65:
731:
599:
372:
is requested; cordial, objective input is welcome. I have to point out that I am not
46:
491:
451:
425:
411:
471:
854:
712:
447:
430:
389:
853:. I am quite strongly opposed to removing this wording. It is definitely not "
302:
966:
938:
933:) changes the meaning in a way that weakens the argument for this guideline.
931:
Otherwise, a project like
Knowledge would have been doomed from the beginning
900:
Otherwise, a project like
Knowledge would have been doomed from the beginning
881:
862:
616:
584:
555:
551:
475:
226:
727:
720:
592:
407:
308:
334:
Request for input regarding assuming good faith in a talk page dispute
179:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are
981:
962:
934:
877:
858:
840:. This text had been a part of this guideline page for years—since
304:
181:
309:
167:
149:
782:). Precisely the sort of outcome AGF is designed to prevent.
513:
220:
15:
792:, which might intensify resentments all around." -
892:Most people try to help the project, not hurt it
656:does not provide a neutral point of view." -
317:This page has archives. Sections older than
904:The existence of Knowledge is proof of that.
690:Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias
986:the existence of Knowledge is proof of that
851:the existence of Knowledge is proof of that
510:Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024
357:The following discussion has been closed.
129:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
327:when more than 4 sections are present.
195:Knowledge:WikiProject Spoken Knowledge
709:Reality has a well known liberal bias
198:Template:WikiProject Spoken Knowledge
717:Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias
118:
116:
112:
857:" (the rationale for removing it).
774:presents a NPOV to whether another
694:Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus
135:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
13:
14:
1012:
696:#61. It's a nasty application of
321:may be automatically archived by
173:This page is within the scope of
574:
517:
225:
166:
148:
117:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
778:is excessively biased (compare
370:User talk:Thinker78#Chemtrails
1:
1001:16:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
971:04:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
957:03:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
943:02:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
916:00:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
886:20:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
867:20:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
820:19:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
780:Knowledge:No personal attacks
500:04:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
484:04:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
460:02:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
442:02:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
420:02:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
401:01:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
351:04:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
189:and see a list of open tasks.
37:Put new text under old text.
176:WikiProject Spoken Knowledge
7:
540:to reactivate your request.
528:has been answered. Set the
45:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
1017:
671:advantage in that tussle.
652:are biased " rather than "
88:
902:" is not synonymous with
828:Doomed from the beginning
802:16:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
763:15:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
746:16:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
683:16:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
666:15:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
643:15:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
606:22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
568:21:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
201:Spoken Knowledge articles
161:
143:
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
360:Please do not modify it.
925:the wording). However,
554:no longer redirects to
929:that second sentence (
386:
324:Lowercase sigmabot III
70:avoid personal attacks
382:
343:ScottishFinnishRadish
692:(which is linked in
834:restoring this text
698:poisoning the well
131:content assessment
81:dispute resolution
42:
603:
544:
543:
507:
506:
331:
330:
296:
295:
217:
216:
213:
212:
209:
208:
111:
110:
61:Assume good faith
38:
25:Assume good faith
1008:
740:
604:
595:
590:
582:
578:
577:
535:
531:
521:
520:
514:
437:
435:
396:
394:
362:
341:Improper venue.
338:
337:
326:
310:
243:
242:
229:
221:
203:
202:
199:
196:
193:
192:Spoken Knowledge
170:
163:
162:
156:Spoken Knowledge
152:
145:
144:
122:
121:
120:
113:
101:
16:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1007:
1006:
1005:
838:removed in June
830:
738:
713:Stephen Colbert
614:
593:
588:
575:
573:
533:
529:
518:
512:
431:
429:
390:
388:
358:
336:
322:
311:
305:
234:
200:
197:
194:
191:
190:
107:
106:
105:
104:
97:
93:
86:
56:
12:
11:
5:
1014:
1004:
1003:
993:Butwhatdoiknow
989:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
949:Butwhatdoiknow
908:Butwhatdoiknow
898:removed. And "
888:
874:Butwhatdoiknow
872:Courtesy ping
829:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
806:
805:
804:
794:Butwhatdoiknow
783:
767:
766:
765:
724:
705:
701:
658:Butwhatdoiknow
628:
627:
624:
613:
610:
609:
608:
542:
541:
522:
511:
508:
505:
504:
503:
502:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
374:forum shopping
364:
363:
354:
353:
335:
332:
329:
328:
316:
313:
312:
307:
303:
301:
298:
297:
294:
293:
288:
283:
277:
276:
271:
266:
260:
259:
254:
249:
236:
235:
230:
224:
215:
214:
211:
210:
207:
206:
204:
187:the discussion
171:
159:
158:
153:
141:
140:
134:
123:
109:
108:
103:
102:
94:
89:
87:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1013:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
987:
983:
980:
972:
968:
964:
960:
959:
958:
954:
950:
946:
945:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
919:
918:
917:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
869:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
847:
843:
839:
835:
821:
817:
813:
812:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
788:
784:
781:
777:
773:
768:
764:
760:
756:
755:
749:
748:
747:
743:
742:
741:
733:
729:
725:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
699:
695:
691:
686:
685:
684:
680:
676:
675:
669:
668:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
646:
645:
644:
640:
636:
635:
625:
622:
621:
620:
618:
607:
601:
597:
596:
586:
581:
572:
571:
570:
569:
565:
561:
560:96.64.248.125
557:
553:
549:
539:
536:parameter to
527:
523:
516:
515:
501:
497:
493:
488:
487:
486:
485:
481:
477:
473:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
444:
443:
440:
436:
434:
427:
423:
422:
421:
417:
413:
409:
404:
403:
402:
399:
395:
393:
385:
381:
379:
375:
371:
366:
365:
361:
356:
355:
352:
348:
344:
340:
339:
325:
320:
315:
314:
300:
299:
292:
289:
287:
284:
282:
279:
278:
275:
272:
270:
267:
265:
262:
261:
258:
255:
253:
250:
248:
245:
244:
241:
238:
237:
233:
228:
223:
222:
219:
205:
188:
184:
183:
178:
177:
172:
169:
165:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
147:
146:
142:
138:
132:
128:
124:
115:
114:
100:
96:
95:
92:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
985:
930:
926:
923:just changed
903:
899:
895:
891:
850:
845:
831:
810:
809:
789:
786:
775:
771:
753:
752:
736:
735:
721:Paul Krugman
715:) and that "
673:
672:
653:
649:
633:
632:
629:
615:
591:
579:
547:
545:
537:
526:edit request
468:
432:
391:
383:
367:
359:
318:
231:
218:
180:
174:
137:WikiProjects
127:project page
126:
19:This is the
844:. It says:
492:Bon courage
452:Bon courage
426:Bon courage
412:Bon courage
378:WP:SEEKHELP
530:|answered=
448:WP:HEARing
927:removing
836:that was
811:North8000
754:North8000
674:North8000
654:your edit
634:North8000
433:Thinker78
392:Thinker78
387:Regards,
291:Archive 9
286:Archive 8
281:Archive 7
274:Archive 6
269:Archive 5
264:Archive 4
257:Archive 3
252:Archive 2
247:Archive 1
83:if needed
66:Be polite
21:talk page
855:WP:KUDZU
842:May 2005
580:Not done
550:because
476:Zaathras
319:180 days
232:Archives
91:Shortcut
51:get help
787:motives
739:PING me
728:Valjean
594:Primium
546:remove
894:" was
790:biases
776:editor
617:WP:AGF
585:WP:AFG
556:WP:AGF
552:WP:AFG
439:(talk)
398:(talk)
182:spoken
133:scale.
99:WT:AGF
890:Um, "
832:I am
534:|ans=
524:This
408:WP:AN
240:Index
125:This
79:Seek
27:page.
997:talk
967:talk
953:talk
939:talk
912:talk
882:talk
863:talk
816:talk
798:talk
772:edit
759:talk
732:talk
679:talk
662:talk
639:talk
600:talk
564:talk
496:talk
480:talk
472:here
456:talk
416:talk
347:talk
68:and
982:Mz7
963:Mz7
935:Mz7
896:not
878:Mz7
859:Mz7
734:) (
719:" (
711:" (
650:you
532:or
380:,
999:)
969:)
955:)
941:)
914:)
884:)
876:.
865:)
818:)
800:)
761:)
744:)
681:)
664:)
641:)
589:–
583:—
566:)
558:.
538:no
498:)
482:)
458:)
418:)
410:.
349:)
49:;
995:(
965:(
951:(
937:(
910:(
880:(
861:(
814:(
796:(
757:(
730:(
677:(
660:(
637:(
602:)
598:(
562:(
494:(
478:(
454:(
424:@
414:(
345:(
139::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
