Forum:RuneScape:Edits aren't vandalism

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > RuneScape:Edits aren't vandalism
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 24 September 2010 by Liquidhelium.

Assume good faith was a policy intended to mean that edits should be construed as intended to benefit the wiki unless there is obvious evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, in recent days, the meaning of that policy has changed to mean that the assumption should be made that everyone is going to help the wiki. That is not an interpretation that is sustainable. If that were the case, then, for one, everyone who stalks the RC for vandalism is violating AGF. After all, RC stalkers aren't making the assumption that everyone is here to try to help the wiki. Then, if we followed that interpretation, everyone should be bureaucratted right now, since we would have to make the assumption that they're not going to do anything bad. Obviously, both of these cases are ridiculous.

To amend the situation, I am proposing that we rename the policy to RuneScape:Edits aren't vandalism, or RS:EAV for short. This would return to the original meaning of AGF by focusing the policy on edits instead of editors. We should assume that an edit which is made is intended to benefit the wiki. We do not need to assume that editors are here for only good and not harm, since that presents numerous practical difficulties. The policy should also be rewritten to conform to the new name, though the changes needed are minor. If anyone else can come up with a better name, go ahead and say it. --LiquidTalk 18:00, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 18:00, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm neutral on the name change, and it says that obvious vandalism shouldn't receive the assumed good faith. I kind of understand where you're coming from, but I haven't seen that kind of interpretation applied before. Could you provide an example of the ridiculous assumptions, like "We shouldn't stalk the recent changes," actually happening? I mean: is somebody actually pushing for everybody to be a bureaucrat, or something like that, on account of AGF? Leftiness 19:13, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I can give you the general pages, but they are long and you'll have to sift through them to find instances of AGF misuse. I got the RC stalking idea from this page, though I'm pretty sure he was joking. AGF misuse includes pages such as Forum:Request to block User:Parsonsda, Forum:Concerning Parsonsda..., (other Parsons threads that I won't bother to list), and things related to RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Ajraddatz. I was accused of not assuming good faith because I opposed the RfA. --LiquidTalk 19:15, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Now, how does changing it to "edits aren't vandalism" change the way that some people will, in my opinion, give too much weight to the concept? Instead of saying "Parsons was editing to help the wiki, so you should assume good faith," they'll just say "Parsons edits weren't meant to be vandalism, so you shouldn't assume he was trying to hurt the wiki." Leftiness 19:36, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
The difference there is that Parsons wasn't blocked for vandalism. He was blocked for his conduct on the wiki. Therefore, people cannot use his edits as evidence. --LiquidTalk 19:37, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Changing the policy to "edits aren't vandalism" will certainly prevent anybody from arguing that everybody should be a bureaucrat, but I don't think it will have any effect on how AGF will be, in my opinion, given too much weight in some situations. Personally, I'm a big fan of UCS, and I don't like, especially in Parsons' case, how it was asserted that we should assume good faith to our dying day, but I don't think there's a way to prevent such an over-weighting interpretation of AGF or any policy resulting from it without removing it completely, which I don't think would go over well. Leftiness 19:50, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I do not see any problems with the current policy and do not believe just changing the name would fix anything if there were such problems. HaloTalk 19:54, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Maybe we should use common sense instead? Armadyl symbol.png Nightgunner Talk Illuminated Book of Law.png 20:41, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Reluctant Oppose - While I like the idea of ensuring the policy is not taken incredibly far out of content like this one, the proposed changes will not aid the situation (per Leftiness). As was proven when changing RS:IAR to RS:UCS, the previous version of the policy will still be cited on occasion like it's doctrine (which might be fixable by redirecting the redirect to RuneScape:Placeholder or something). The other problem with the proposed title is that it's too far removed from the current context of the policy, which I think is fine. I suggest ammending the current version of the policy, clarifying when it should and should not be used. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:14, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Common sense should dictate over everything. It should be common sense how the policy is to be interpreted, and that any loopholes do not apply. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:16, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

The problem with leaving policies open to excessive interpretation is that ultimately, two users can end up with fundamentally different views on what the same policy is saying to do. RS:AEAE is a prime example of this. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:55, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral on change, oppose on name - I think AGF might need a name change so that it goes back to it's original meaning but EAV seems like a worse name. Maybe assume edits are in good faith or AEAGF. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 03:07, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Common sense should prevail. Interpreting this in that way could be counted as gaming the system. 222 talk 06:28, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I do not think whenever an user helps a wiki, he will not vandal it accidentally. However good faith is achieved. There are countless cases of unintential vandel everyday and changing the topic name will absolutely create problems. By cruelty means, some edits can be considred vandals and we are responsible to warn or notice the inexperienced users. We are not passive, I believe. Rewlf2 17:06, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - That policy isn't just saying that we should assume that edits are done in good faith; it is referring to everything on the wiki - even when making assumptions on an rfa. By the way, you did assume bad faith on my rfa, but that is drama for another day. ajr 18:03, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - fail name? bad_fetustalk 18:24, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - AGF isn't just about vandalism..it also means that you should assume that someone doesn't have bad intentions or a hidden motive. Andrew talk 20:10, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The name isn't good for starters because some edits are vandalism. :x Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 20:34, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above. AGF might need rewording, but I don't think this is the way to go. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 20:36, September 20, 2010 (UTC) 

Oppose - in your example, you said that RC stalking is violating AGF, but that's only if you take it very literally. If you take the proposed name with the same degree of of literal...ness... then it sounds just as ridiculous, because as Lil cloud said, some edits are vandalism. I think that AGF is a fine name as long as it's clear that while you should realize that often people don't mean to make bad edits, it doesn't mean that every edit is well-meaning. It should be taken more on a case-by-case basis than assuming that all edits are good. insaneular 20:40, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn - I'll see if I can come up with a better name. Rewriting it isn't going to work, because the policy is fine as written; it's the fact that people cite the name every 10 seconds in an inappropriate fashion that bothers me. --LiquidTalk 19:25, September 24, 2010 (UTC)