When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating.
Newcomers unaware of Wikiversity's unique culture and the mechanics of Wikiversity editing often make mistakes or fail to respect community norms. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their experience elsewhere. Similarly, many newcomers bring with them experience or expertise for which they expect immediate respect. Behaviors arising from these perspectives are not malicious.
Obviously, editors can't be expected to assume good faith if, despite the best possible interpretation of another's actions, it is clear that these actions are contrary to the project's goals. Actions inconsistent with good faith contributions to the project's goals include vandalism, sockpuppetry, and other clear instances of intentional deceit.
Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith.
- Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith
- Wikipedia:No angry mastodons
- Wikipedia:On assuming good faith
- Wikipedia:Assume bad faith
- Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa (from meta)
- Forgive and forget - essay at Wikipedia