On the proposal to have well defined limitations on assuming good faith to mitigate trolling/vandalism

My proposal is to add limitations to “good faith” by using a similar approach from Wikipedia:Assume good faith - Wikipedia . The first paragraph is the following:

Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors’ edits and comments are made in good faith – that is, the assumption that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Nor does assuming good faith prohibit discussion and criticism, as even editors who try to improve Wikipedia may not have the information or skills necessary to succeed in their good-faith goals. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such.
(…)

Reasoning

Status Quo

In the OSM Etiquette Guidelines (Etiquette/Etiquette Guidelines - OpenStreetMap Wiki):

Act in good faith. It is surprisingly easy to misunderstand each other, whether online or in person, particularly in such a culturally and linguistically diverse setting as OpenStreetMap. Misunderstandings can easily arise when we are debating topics or when we are in a rush or distracted. Please ask the other person to explain before assuming that a communication was inappropriate or not made in good faith

Note: In my opinion, the new version still better than the mere “Assume good faith” (too vague, not enforceable) from the Etiquette - OpenStreetMap Foundation.

The problem

There is a loophole already explored in the wild: anyone can keep saying they are acting in “good faith” regardless of any evidence (no matter how obvious) of the contrary.

Wikipedia’s approach on good faith is quite similar including the importance of being welcoming. The problem is the OSM Etiquette Guidelines not only don’t consider issues such as intentional vandalism (which tends to be small proportion, more likely to be user mistake), but force others to ignore actions indefinitely, no matter how obvious.

8 posts - 6 participants

Read full topic


Ce sujet de discussion accompagne la publication sur https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/on-the-proposal-to-have-well-defined-limitations-on-assuming-good-faith-to-mitigate-trolling-vandalism/4658