Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-09/Assume good faith

• Voting on: Accepting as a guideline Wiktionary:Assume good faith as revised 02:12, 26 August 2007. permalink added Rod (A. Smith) 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Vote ends: 8 October 2007 24:00 UTC
• Vote starts: 8 September 2007 00:00 UTC

• Vote created: DAVilla 06:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  WT:BP#Wiktionary:Assume good faith

1. Support Widsith 17:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Of course.
2. Support allowing for changes from "policy" to "guideline" if desired. DAVilla 14:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Visviva 14:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Suggest, however, that the focus of work for guideline pages should be on providing appropriate guidance/documentation, rather than getting any particular version enshrined through a vote.

   Although specific, this vote of course would not preclude future adjustments. Personally, I would never object to an alteration that, not being controversial, reflects and clarifies the consensus of the community, forgoing the formality of a vote. It's just difficult to garner support for a policy in name only, and understandably so. People want to know what they're voting on. DAVilla 15:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough... my grudge is really with the way WT:VOTE (and that loathsome header) have come to dominate the policy-development process here. m:Polling is evil and primacy of the wiki process, blah blah blah... but anyway, this is not the place for me to vent, I just wanted to mention my reservations. -- Visviva 15:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Support per DAVilla. —Ruakh_TALK 16:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Rod (A. Smith) 07:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC) The opposition appears uninterested in creating an amicable environment, so there seems to be no point in holding out for a compromise. Rod (A. Smith) 07:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support H. (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Looks good, but indeed should be open for alterations in the future.
7. Support —Stephen 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Cynewulf 00:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Doesn't look too heavy on the rainbows and unicorns.
9. Support EncycloPetey 15:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Language Lover 05:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    We should apply this principle not only on Wiktionary but in Real Life. It's a classic NLP presupposition: it's not literally true, but it is useful as a model of the world, and following it will lead us to greater happiness and success. :)

1. Oppose Connel MacKenzie 21:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Several things: #1) specifying a version "at the end of August" is misleading, ambiguous and inaccurate, #2) Several people did object to sections of that version; it hasn't been discussed except to play an end-run assuming that such a thing is OK to begin with (which the objections show is not,) #3) proposed as a policy? Even 'pedia calls theirs a common-sense guideline - what "policy" is to be inflicted by this? #4) current version has no "Nutshell" summary, #5) TLDR - it violates the principle of simplicity by being enormous, #6) focus is still on some perceived guideline that applies only to wikt regulars, when the discussions plainly, obviously and repeatedly suggested the opposite should be the focus; that newcomers should assume good faith on the part of admins and Wiktionary regulars, #7) there is no specific section for Wikipedian violations, i.e. where a Wikipedia drops in and assumes that everything on Wiktionary should be exactly identical to Wikipedia...the one-line disclaimer at the top is a good "nutshell" summary perhaps, but goes nowhere near describing how disruptive it is for very experienced Wikipedians to pull stunts like that. Voting early again, as it seems to be Yet-Another-Vote-Submitted-Early NOT to officially condone existing practices, but rather, to do an end-run policy creep maneuver of inflicting fanciful policy where none are helpful or applicable. --Connel MacKenzie 21:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

   Reviewing this in light of recent events, I'd like to strike this oppose, but cannot bring myself to it. This should be, at most, a guideline. --Connel MacKenzie 16:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

# Abstain Rod (A. Smith) 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC) The supporters of this guideline wish to make the English Wiktionary more inviting to the uninitiated, thereby augmenting our volunteer staff, reducing the per-administrator load, and improving this project. From the opposing comments above, though, it seems that adoption of the current version would have little if any effect on the opposing faction, making it considerably less potent than it would be if it had consensus. I don't know whether the opposing faction still believes a compromise is possible that would promote a more inviting experience for the uninitiated. If so, I would oppose this version in order to let a more acceptable one evolve. If not, I would support the current one. Rod (A. Smith) 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Abstain Robert Ullmann 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC) since this says explicitly that this a guideline, (and not policy) (Connel: note) what is the point of this vote? A straw poll on consensus on having something like this? sure, no problem Robert Ullmann 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Passes 9-1-1. DAVilla 03:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)