Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Taking for granted a celebration of amorality, or WP:Assume good faith
> Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion
AB
Assume good faith sounds all well and good, but then, what
exactly is good faith?

WP:AGF in a nutshell:

QUOTE
Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that
people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.


Here we see that good faith is defined as trying to help 'the
project', by which they mean WP. Because WP is so important
that no description besides 'the project' is needed. ; )

Thus, this policy takes for granted that trying to help the
project is a good thing. It isn't WP:What is good faith?, in
which the ethics of good faith is are debated. It simply takes
for granted that this is good.

But is it really always a good thing?

Good, in my book, means helping people. Not encyclopaedias.
Encyclopaedias have no feelings. They are relevant only in how
they affect people. Thus, the purpose of an encyclopaedia, or a
supposed charity claiming to be an encyclopaedia, should be to
help people. Seriously hurting people is contrary to this, and is
bad.

But the WP community is lost. They think being an encyclopaedia
is a goal in and of itself. They have replaced ethics with the
worship of an unfeeling, unthinking website, for which they
violate copyright, defame, and violate privacy.

Sadly, threatening violence for the good of WP is technically
defined as good faith, by the definition of WP:AGF. Where does
it stop? Actual violence? Homicide? Why not throw a bomb into
a field of flowers for the good of WP?

As a disclaimer, I am sure there are many members of WP who
have never considered the possibility of helping people and
helping the encyclopaedia as sometimes being contrary goals.
And I am sure there are also many ethical members who are
simply not acting in good faith by WP's definition. The overall
spirit of the WP community, however, takes for granted a
celebration of amorality.

QUOTE('Rudyard Kipling @ A Death-Bed')
"This is the State above the Law. The State exists for the State alone." [This is a gland at the back of the jaw, And an answering lump by the collar-bone.], Some die shouting in gas or fire; Some die silent, by shell and shot. Some die desperate, caught on the wire; Some die suddenly. This will not. "Regis suprema voluntas Lex" [It will follow the regular course of--throats.] Some die pinned by the broken decks, Some die sobbing between the boats. Some die eloquent, pressed to death By the sliding trench, as their friends can hear. Some die wholly in half a breath. Some--give trouble for half a year. "There is neither Evil nor Good in life Except as the needs of the State ordain." [Since it is rather too late for the knife, All we can do is to mask the pain.] Some die saintly in faith and hope-- One died thus in a prison-yard-- Some die broken by rape or the rope; Some die easily. This dies hard. "I will dash to pieces who bar my way. Woe to the traitor! Woe to the weak!" [Let him write what he wishes to say. It tires him out if he tries to speak.] Some die quietly. Some abound In loud self-pity. Others spread Bad morale through the cots around... This is a type that is better dead. "The war was forced on me by my foes. All that I sought was the right to live." [Don't be afraid of a triple dose; The pain will neutralize all we give. Here are the needles. See that he dies While the effects of the drug endure.... What is the question he asks with his eyes?-- Yes, All-Highest, to God, be sure.
Moulton
The cabal of editors that I ran into neither assumed good faith nor acted in good faith.

Nor did they engage in good science nor good science writing.

To my mind, the lack of ethics is a fatal flaw for a project of the size, scope, and reach of Wikipedia.

Nor is there any evidence that the project is inclined to adopt a code of ethics suitable to an encyclopedia.

The operational characteristics are more akin to what one could expect of an MMPORG.
AB
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 3rd January 2008, 4:33pm) *
The cabal of editors that I ran into neither assumed good faith nor acted in good faith.


Whose definition of good faith? Yours or theirs?

If it was their definition, and they thought you weren't acting
in good faith, you should take it as a compliment. : )

If fact, if they accused you of acting in good faith, by the WP
definition, it would probably be defamatory.
Moulton
QUOTE(AB @ Thu 3rd January 2008, 11:38am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 3rd January 2008, 4:33pm) *
The cabal of editors that I ran into neither assumed good faith nor acted in good faith.
Whose definition of good faith? Yours or theirs?

Mine. I am unable to fathom their definition of things.

QUOTE
If it was their definition, and they thought you weren't acting in good faith, you should take it as a compliment. : )

If fact, if they accused you of acting in good faith, by the WP definition, it would probably be defamatory.

There may be an operational error in their definition, since they don't seem to be able to accurately discern the level of faith in people who are unlike them.
AB
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 3rd January 2008, 4:53pm) *
QUOTE(AB @ Thu 3rd January 2008, 11:38am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 3rd January 2008, 4:33pm) *
The cabal of editors that I ran into neither assumed good faith nor acted in good faith.
Whose definition of good faith? Yours or theirs?

Mine. I am unable to fathom their definition of things.


I just explained that.

In a nutshell: Caring about encyclopaedias more than human life is
good faith. Caring about human life more than encyclopaedias is
bad faith. According to the definition of good faith provided by AGF,
at least.

I am acting in bad faith, according to WP, and proud of it!
Moulton
QUOTE(AB @ Thu 3rd January 2008, 11:58am) *
In a nutshell: Caring about encyclopaedias more than human life is good faith. Caring about human life more than encyclopaedias is bad faith. According to the definition of good faith provided by AGF, at least.

That definition presupposes an operational step of accurately determining what another person cares about.

KillerChihuahua, for instance, demonstrated a disappointing inability to discern what I care about, and an astonishing unwillingness to learn.

Peter Damian tells me he joins KillerChihuahua in that lamentable malpractice.

AB
KillerChihuahua actually is (or was?) a friend of mine. However,
we haven't spoken in ages, so I have no idea what his/her
reasons were.

Anyway, the entire environment at WP is poisonous. Good
people could easily be seduced into doing bad things, considering
how WP pulls the wool over people's eyes.
Moulton
One can only speculate. However, it's plausible to suppose that a reason that has worked in the past would work once again. How was KillerChihuahua to know that I had, in fact, previously written an article for a real encyclopedia when she inexplicably ventured a haphazard theory that I had no interest in writing encyclopedia articles? That made me wonder how many other haphazard theories of mind were being bandied around in a similar fashion.

Turns out it's pretty common.

I recall the first time a professional psychologist briefed me on that unethical practice. He called it by a disparaging name -- Soviet Psychology. Evidently back in the days of the Pogroms, it was commonly used to label someone that the regime wanted to get rid of.

It's a toxic practice for sure, and one that potentially brings the project into disrepute.
The Joy
WP reminds me more of "The Outcasts of Poker Flat."

I've been thinking about Internet communities and all. Fiefdoms and Wild West towns fit sites like WP quite well. Justice isn't determined by an impartial process but by the community or the elite of the community. Lynch mobs dispense justice and vigilantes denounce others as "unclean." WP supposedly has a judicial process but it is still ultimately subject to the core community's will, which makes it rather pointless.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.