Il 18/02/2014 21:12, C. Scott Ananian ha scritto:
There are multiple readings of "Assume Good Faith". I think pi zero was
pointing out that it can be used to justify 'violent' communications. "Oh,
sure, it might seem like I just punched you in the nose, but you must AGF
and respond as I were just trying to kill a mosquito that happened to have
landed there." David Gerard's "stupidity" reading of AGF would be,
"...respond as if you just clumsily knocked into my nose, since clumsiness
is more common than malice". Both variants of the assumption can be
abused by malicious actors.
The problem in all societies is how to establish mutual trust; part of
which requires protecting the society from malicious actors. AGF is only
one part; it works to soothe "common clumsiness" while malicious actors
need to be dealt with via other means. We shouldn't really evaluate it in
isolation from the other mechanisms in our society
It's certainly an interesting point that AGF excuses incivil conversation
and puts the burden on the listener to compensate, which is a rather
Torvalds-ian approach. But the linux-kernel mailing list seems to be
WP:AGF without WP:CIVIL. WP:CIVIL puts the burden on the speaker. Balance!
--scott
In my experience >50% of people asking to AGF'em are actually in bad
faith :D
Vito
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
