Talk:Assume good faith
Subject to interpretation
Really, there is no limit to how much you can assume good faith. If you respond to someone's vandalism with the test template, and they cuss you out, who knows, maybe they really think that you're being a jerk, and that they're helping the project by putting you in your place. Some people are like that. People have undoubtedly had many well-intentioned reasons for breaking the rules, sometimes persistently and/or deviously, and some probably even get banned when they weren't trying to harm the project.
And what is "trolling" to one user could be good-natured fun or sarcasm to another. Or a seriously-intended argument that strikes the recipient as ludicrous can lead to accusations of trolling. That's why you'll never see me talk about "trolling" or "trolls," even when I strongly suspect that is what is going on. I could always be wrong. There is a lot of diversity in this world, and therefore a lot of actions that can be subject to interpretation, especially in a text-based medium like this where we don't have the benefit of nonverbal cues. Tisane 10:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- You have a good point, although this may be a bit off-topic here. Maybe you could create a new essay at WP. The purpose of this essay, mainly, is to compare the ways that different project view AGF. Kayau WP WB WN 11:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I have added "Purpose" to the main essay, so that newbie like me know what it is about. Please remove it if it is in error. - Hydroxonium 20:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
More on intentions. --Nemo 09:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
@Kayau, Mattisse, Microchip08, and Pi zero: Just to let us know that Chinese Wikinews has been approved the AGF guideline (c.f. n:zh:Wikinews:茶馆#提案：将Wikinews:善意推定成为正式指引), which probably means that the descriptions of Wikinews here are for English only. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)