Wikipedia:Postulate absence of malice
 | This is an essay on the conduct policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. As WP becomes more reputable and notable as a reference however the payoff of corrupting one part of it increases for various interests.
Sometimes to assume good faith is difficult. It is nevertheless worth applying a more adaptable but lower bar - postulate absence of malice.
Before reacting consider under what imaginary conditions the change committed could have been produced without the editor being malicious. If one exists, enunciate it, on the talk page. It might be true.
If you assume malice, several things may happen:
- Personal attacks: Once you've made a personal attack, the target will probably assume bad faith. The edit war will get even uglier.
- Losing sight of the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. The ideal is to represent views fairly and without bias. Every revert (rather than change) of a biased edit is a NPOV defeat, no matter how outrageous the edit was. Consider figuring out why the other person felt the article was biased. Then, if possible, try to integrate their point, but in terms you consider neutral. If each side practices this they will eventually meet at NPOV—or a rough semblance of it.
Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring malice. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith.
This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, it only means that one should not ascribe said action to malice. Automatically accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith regardless of their motivation is failing to assume good faith in itself.