Guild Wars Wiki talk:Good faith

Actually, this policy is based on w:WP:AGF, not w:WP:IAR. This is 2 different ideas. Chriskang 23:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a combination. The assumption of good faith is there, but this is also policy enough in the same way that w:WP:IAR in that it allows the ignoring of current policies in order to improve something. --ChronicinabilitY 23:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose this as a policy, AGF was rejected here because we didn't have guidelines in place yet. I think it is being revised at the moment though. - BeX 04:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW I think combining both has potential, but you should bring it up on the AGF revival talk page. - BeX 04:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten this a little, but I believe I've kept the original meaning intact while improving its delivery. Feel free to revert or rewrite if you disagree. I've also moved this to a standard-case title. —Tanaric 05:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the primary idea behind this is better conveyed as a guideline, directed at policy writers as well as other groups.

The note about bad faith is worse; I see it as a potential cause of conflict, with people using it to attack eachother. Not something I'd like to see. It's such a vauge thing too, so it'd be hard to say who is 'right'. It not only requires guessing others intentions, but also evaluating their worth. And anyway, it's only relevant use is for user and talk pages, since we can edit the others as it is, so I'd prefer clear policies for those instead.~ Backsword

Yea, which is why Wikipedia has a clause which says that people who cite AGF against other people are most likely doing it in bad faith. And they also assume the assumption of good faith ;) -- ab.er.rant 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fail?

Time to reject this one?

1. Mostly opposed.
2. Continued at Guild Wars Wiki:Policy is not stringent

Backsword 13:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)