Loomio
Wed 1 Aug 2018 10:57PM

CoC: assume good faith versus don't assume bad faith

AW Aaron Wolf Public Seen by 261

I proposed the "Assume Good Faith" guideline as I think the principle of charitable interpretation is extremely important, especially online. However, I've recently lost some comfort with the term.

As a proactive assertion, "assume good faith" can even read as an obligation even in light of evidence to the contrary. Ideally, what we want is no assumptions at all, particularly not assumptions of bad faith.

I still like positive assertions that messages be interpreted with charity. People should keep in mind the potential for a communication to have been in good faith. Keeping an open mind that way and replying with grace is the point. The point isn't actually to assume good faith.

So, what about alternatives like "don't assume bad faith"?

That no long works in the positive DOs list, but it says not to assume rather than to assume.

Positive framing includes things like "interpret with charity" or some things in those directions. That at least leaves it more open to each person to not feel obligated to make certain assumptions…

Or maybe "Assume Good Faith" is good enough (and my initial liking is because it's already a widespread concept)…?
*

ED

emi do Thu 2 Aug 2018 10:28PM

I like the sound of that as an explanation, maybe a bubble that pops up if you hover over the "assume good faith". It feels a bit out of place with the rest of the CoC wording which is more concise/precise?

AW

Aaron Wolf Thu 2 Aug 2018 10:33PM

I separately mentioned annotated version. I think we can benefit from all parts of the CoC being really precise and concise, then have larger explanations in a separate annotated doc (I don't think hover is reliable enough).

MB

Manuela Bosch Tue 7 Aug 2018 12:28PM

@wolftune did this discussion so far help to come up with a proposal or to move one step further? Where exactly do we still need to find more clarity in oder to resolve this?

AW

Aaron Wolf Tue 7 Aug 2018 2:19PM

I could see three possible outcomes:

  1. change nothing (overall we don't think the concern is a big enough deal)
  2. switch the term to something like "don't assume bad faith"
  3. provide some explanation (either within the CoC as a sub-bullet or start drafting the annotated version of the CoC that I proposed elsewhere and draft an explanation of "Assume Good Faith" clarifying how to think about it)
MB

Manuela Bosch Tue 7 Aug 2018 6:35PM

Thanks for the clear summary, Aaron. What do the others here think? About 2: Generally I like to avoid formulating things negatively, it better to talk about what we want, to be able to work towards something instead of against. 3: is only an option if we can keep the CoC text still short. If 3 means a considerable increase in text, maybe 1: change nothing.

ED

emi do Wed 8 Aug 2018 1:33PM

TL,DR: I vote for option 3 if it's happening anyway, or option 1

I seem to recall there was some support for an annotated version for CoC though I can't seem to find over what issues we thought this would be helpful. If we are doing an annotated version anyway, I don't think this addition would hurt.

However, if we are debating about whether or not to have an annotated version, I would vote for not as I'm not sure how necessary it is at this time.

BC

Becci Cat Mon 20 Aug 2018 11:15AM

"Assume good faith" is widely abused on Wikipedia - it means that even when someone has demonstrated bad faith, a person can be blamed for pointing this out. I would much prefer "don't assume bad faith."

RB

Robert Benjamin Mon 20 Aug 2018 10:59PM

Agreed. The "assume good faith" tenet seems murky at the moment. Though will have to slip deeper into the CoC draft to see it's context.

ELP

Edward L Platt Mon 20 Aug 2018 11:18PM

Assume good faith seems like more of a guideline (as it is on Wikipedia). The CoC is for defining clear boundaries and procedures, so while I agree with the AGF philosophy, the CoC is probably not the best place.

AW

Aaron Wolf Tue 21 Aug 2018 12:10AM

The point is to have something that is actually part of the CoC. It's not a general suggestion. To be clear: accusing someone of acting in bad faith or effectively replying to someone with an assumption of bad faith (lacking adequate evidence of bad faith) is a real problem.

While there are all too many bad-faith actors out there, a huge portion of the misunderstandings and tragic, unnecessary conflicts between good faith participants comes from them treating one another as acting in bad faith. People have a sincere difference of political views or just misinterpret or sloppily-express something that leads to a misunderstanding. Instead of questioning and asking about the intent, people go with their impression of bad-faith and conflicts arise that shouldn't have happened.

At Wikipedia, AGF is not a mere guideline. It's enforced in the sense that failing to AGF is treated as a violation of community principles. Continual violation of AGF can even lead to reduced privileges etc.

We want a situation where a post that unfairly assumes bad faith can be taken down for that reason. But we also don't want bad-faith actors to be able to hide behind AGF, of course. That's the difficulty here.