Commons talk:Assume good faith

Guideline

This is well-established project-wide. Is there any reason to delay formalizing its adoption as a guideline here? Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The "nutshell" is three times as long as the proposed "guideline"? --  Docu  at 16:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added some more material to the guidelines that is relevant to Commons. I think this should be enough to start with. Kaldari (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems good to me. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would formalize it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Questions

A couple of questions.

First, why do we have a section that specifically refers to the "English version" of AGF. It's not actually the English version (this policy here on Commons is in English), but rather the corresponding policy from the English-language Wikipedia. More importantly, however, why are we giving it special mention? Aren't the interwiki links enough? As currently set up, it seems to be suggesting that we are importing the AGF policy from another project, that one needs to go over there for more details, and that we are bound by whatever changes they make to it over at the English Wikipedia. If we feel a need to refer to AGF policies on other projects, above and beyond the interwiki links, I would think that an "external links" section with a general reference to the side bar (as opposed to a specific link to one Wikipedia project among many) would be better.

Second, should there perhaps be a reference here that Commons is a multilingual project, users communicate in a number of languages (including languages in which they might not be fully proficient) and that we should all be patient and cognizant of the fact that unintentional misunderstandings can occur? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I took a first crack at drafting some possible language, as it might be easier to consider my second point with actual text to consider. I am not wed to any of it.

"Wikimedia Commons is a multilingual project, and its editors communicate with with one another in a large number of different languages. When engaged in a discussion in a language that is not one's first language, one can sometimes convey or discern an unintended tone or meaning. Avoid jumping to negative assumptions, as misunderstandings may turn out to be linguistic, rather than substantive, in nature. Absent clear evidence of bad faith or uncivil behaviour, be patient and kind to those editors who are doing you the courtesy of communicating with you in your language rather than their own."

Thoughts? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Good observations and very good initiative! I think the language might be a little complex considering the topic. Here's an attempt at a rewrite:

Wikimedia Commons is an international and multilingual project, and its editors use many different languages to communicate. When using a second language, people can sometimes express themselves in ways that convey a different tone or message than the one intended. To avoid false assumptions about the intentions of other editors, keep in mind that language barriers can cause misunderstandings. Editors who use a language other than their own usually do so out of courtesy to others.

—LX (talk, contribs) 10:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So much better! Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I doesn't appear that any of these changes are controversial, or even attract much interest, so I will implement them, obviously without prejudice to any subsequent comments that may appear. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Precaution

A recent discussion on wm-l about the deletion of good-faith uploads led to a recent small edit war on this page, around whether to add a link to the precautionary principle from here (and how to word that, if so). I understand the intent behind adding this (in practice that feels like an exception to this guideline), and the pushback against it (it feels pointy to call out this particular other policy in this otherwise very-clear one -- and deletions are almost always assumptions of (c)-ignorance, not of bad faith).

Noting the debate here on the talk page for any followup discussion. --SJ+ 17:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Deletions are done based on evidence. A number of suspicious circumstances (user's upload history, EXIF data, subject of the image, etc.) may lead to the conclusion that the files are most probably copyright violations, so we indeed delete them without checking each files individually. In this case, the precautionary principle trumps the assume good faith policy. We usually create a deletion request, which gives the uploader one week to answer to the issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to claim that "the precautionary principle trumps the assume good faith policy". The key word with "assume" is that without evidence otherwise, we suppose people come here in good faith. The "suspicious circumstances" Yann lists are the evidence that causes one to doubt one's assumptions. -- Colin (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Colin The ‘suspicious circumstances’ listed above don’t necessarily suggest bad faith; they may simply suggest a lack of understanding of copyright. That’s OK, precautionary deletions don’t require bad faith either. There is no conflict between ‘assume good faith’ and the ‘precautionary principle’. Brianjd (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)