Assume good faith

Good faith, something which most Wikipedos are incapable of maintaining, gets the User:ByAppointmentTo seal of approval. So if Guy Chapman likes tits like this why is he editing in such bad faith?

Blind faith, on the other hand, gets the Pedobear seal of approval. This is because Pedobear has a fear of fully developed hueg titties.

Assume good faith is a policy on TOW. The policy itself states that Wikipedia works "from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it." However, most Wikipedia admins are willing to ignore all rules and be rather lenient about this, because since it is actually a guideline and not policy, they can do whatever they fucking want and abuse newcomers, violating the don't bite the newcomers guideline.

Some Wikipedo admins think they have an ability to detect a troll like a sniffer dog detecting something fishy in the luggage of a Colombian in customs. For example, adding Rick Astley and Mudkips to the vital article list does not warrant a warning like normal IP vandals editing would get; it warrants an indefinite block without any prior discussion.

Meta-philosophy

The thinking behind the "assume good faith" policy is basically that Wikipedos should allow newfags to make mistakes, and even cause a whole lot of chaos and not experience the force of the banhammer. This policy was introduced by Jimbo, because he wants as many edits as possible to take place because that generates more traffic and more revenue, and it deepens the bond between the editor and the cult of Wikipedia.

However, some editors really are unable to assume good faith. JzG and his altar boy Sceptre are prototypical examples of this.

	“	I do not think an admin should have "I am not a big fan of the civility and AGF policies" on their user page for any reason.	„
	—Sceptre's third RfA.

JzG in particular thinks that everything that conflicts with his worldview is trolling. For example, on the May 2008 Encyclopedia Dramatica deletion review he was unable to assume good faith:

	“	Endorse deletion, and yes we know ED users want to validate their tawdry website by having a Wikipedia article, and nothing grieves them more than the implication that their little website is of anything less than surpassing importance but tough. It's just another site full of juvenilia and acutely unfunny "humor", there are a million of them. Oh, and I just visited the shithole to find out of Urban Rose has more edits htere than here, but their popups crashed Firefox. So: not only is it a cesspit of boring sophomoric nonsense, it's an ad'-riddled one at that. On the plus side, Rose does have fewer edits there than here (remarkable given her few edits here), but I did rapidly find out that she is active in the discussions about Grawp, who appears to originate at ED (I guess everybody else already knew this and I am just slow catching on). So another reason for not having an article: they are co-ordinating vandalims of Wikipedia as "punishment" for our daring to say how insignificant they are.	„
	—JzG, focusing more on the "troll" than the actual content of the deletion review.

Another example is Chip Berlet at the July Deletion Review of the Wikipedia Review:

	“	Keep deleted. See the comments of Will B. and MickMacNee. Wikipedia Review is the website of a tiny handful of socially dysfunctional fanatics with enormous egos -- but they are not notable. Their notability exists primarily in their own febrile minds. It would set a terrible precedent to reward a tiny cabal of vicious cyberstalkers, conspiracists, and defamers with notability simply because they claim a status of being important. They are not important; they simply enjoy being self-important bullies. In the real world they would be pushing shopping carts full of trash and mumbling about the sinister forces plotting against them. The Internet gives them a stage, we should not provide the audience.	„
	—Chip Berlet, blatantly flaming the opposition.

oh exploitable

This is what you say when caught in the act.

AGF also makes Wikipedia a relatively easy website for trolls to disrupt as a result, as we all know. Allowing anyone to edit makes the site exploitable to those wishing to generate lulz by creating articles about places that don't exist and other funny things.

How to exploit AGF:

1. Create an account
2. Make a few test-like edits to the sandbox/fix typos/revert vandalism etc.
3. Vandalize
4. Remove warnings from your talk page and provide justification for why it was a test or "good faith" edit. If anybody still says its vandalism, spam their talk page with {{subst:uw-agf}}
5. Repeat step 2, 3 and 4 and take their "good faith" to the limits.

Assume good faith is part of a series on Wikipedia Visit the Wikipedia Portal for complete coverage.