Wikipedia talk:On assuming good faith

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Template essay

I added this template Usage is shown Below {{Essay|Shortcut}}--E-Bod 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold

This Essay Is Great--E-Bod 21:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP-profiling

I add a section on IP profiling. I currently know of no templates to address users who make questionable edits but it is not clearly vandals. I typically just Type my question asking them to explain their edit. If we need to i can make a template to address the issue, however we could just greet them with a {{subst:anon}} and then ask about their edit personally. I can make a template but i don't think it is necessary. 2 times i have seen an anon remove some excess trivial information form an article and i com to their talk page and see a vandal warning and i have to go to the warning giver and let them know of their mistake. Not leaving an edit summary is not vandalism.--E-Bod 21:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miss reading

I read

' to \' (or " to \", or \ to \\)

to mean

( to \ ) -> Something Else

(\ to \\ ) -> Something Else

When it really says

(') -> (\')

(") -> (\")

(\) -> (\\)

While the code reveals

<code>'</code> to <code>\'</code> (or <code>"</code> to <code>\"</code>, or <code>\</code> to <code>\\</code>)

Can somebody disambiguate--E-Bod 22:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...we are giving up our assumption of good faith"

And one thing that is never good for WP is for two editors who are both contributing valuable content to let an honest disagreement get sidetracked by cries of "Vandal!". Once this happens the dialogue will almost inevitably degenerate into counter-productive activities that contribute nothing to the article and detract from the project as a whole. Frequently it draws in third parties (and fourths, and fifths) taking their time and attention away from their own contributions. Our disagreements can be synthesized into added content that strenghtens our articles, but only if we can engage in honest dialog. Unfounded accusations of vandalism create an atmosphere of hostility and imply inherent dishonesty. It also seems that once the name-calling has begun, it's only a matter of time until someone gets called a Nazi. Remember..."Whoever calls his opponent a Nazi first, loses. Period." (Disclaimer: The preceeding was intended as humor and was totally plagiarized from another essay.) The most constructive thing we can do is keep talking to each other, and stay calm...what we're doing here is important, but it should be fun too. All IMHO, of course; YMMV. Doc Tropics 01:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treating other with respect

What about changing "Assume good faith" to "Treat others with respect"?

User:Pi zero, a lead contributor on Wikinews, insists that it is INAPPROPRIATE in Wikinews to "assume good faith" One must check everything.

Isn't "treating others with respect" the essence of what we want in the various Wikimedia communities, while acknowledging that virtually all material should be subject to check for plausibility, and anything that might be questionable should be either documented with a credible source or labeled as opinion or primary data collection (in Wikimedia projects that allow opinions and original research)? DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]