Wikipedia talk:Honesty

message: Chairboy, we are clearly of like mind and your essay expresses a fundamental part of what I'm grappling with. I would like a make a fundamental change, but hesitate to do so until I have your agreement. The change is to move Wikipedia talk:Honesty to Wikipedia talk:Exhibit Good Faith. This is the core point I'm trying to articulate. Exhibiting good faith is the other side of the coin. Without it, the assumption of good faith becomes the endeavor of a good natured fool. Exhibiting good faith encompasses the notion of honesty but entails far more, and in particular shifts the focus from the concept of morality and ethics to the more pragmatic concerns of what is required for the continued health of Wikipedia. A B Carter (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I like this suggestion.  Makes sense, fits. —Doug Bell talk 05:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Change 

message: Simple misdirection is not the point.  If Essjay had merely said he was a paralegal in Boise instead of a paralegal in Louisville, no one would object to it.  The problem we are facing is not about honesty, it's about credentials.  There is nothing wrong with simple misdirection.  I support Essjay, but let's be clear about what the issues are here. Chick Bowen 04:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This does not represent the problem we are currently experiencing 

message: Though this could never be a policy, I strongly agree that it's important for every editor to be honest. There are certain editors I trust -- I would like them not to betray that trust.
It will never be possible now for me to assume good faith with regards to Essjay. In the long run, his unfortunate decisions will have no impact on the project. However, I will now be forced to doubt any assertions that he makes. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I strongly support this essay 

message: I find it wonderfully apropos that this essay is introduced by an epigraph from a cartoon Disney character.  Good job! -- EMET-MET 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  Your comments are most appreciated.  Smee 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epigraph 

message: Great writeup, I hope this becomes a policy. Wish to suggest a minor change, remove the phrase "simply to support their argument" in the first bullet: i.e. "Does not say things they know to be untrue simply to support their argument." This would strengthen the message, afterall there is no legitimate reason to be dishonest. --Vsion 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, to me too it appears it would be a good idea if this becomes policy one day. (with the improvement that I would expect in the process obviously) Mathmo Talk 10:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This one is much better than the other proposals. WP:HONEST is something we should have had all along. --- RockMFR 14:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: This is much better than WP:CRED as a response to the Essjay affair. Unlike WP:CRED, it doesn't overreact to the problem by abandoning all trust in users, or risk creating an "overclass" of Wikipedians with verified academic credentials. It also fits in very well with WP:AGF. Ultimately, Wikipedia is about trust; even if WP:CRED were implemented, there are still plenty of ways that a dishonest and determined user can subvert the system. Just as we assume good faith, we also need to trust the honesty of other Wikipedians; obviously, those who demonstrate repeated dishonesty lose their editing privileges. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strong Support

message: Regarding this edit, I'm wondering if perhaps I worded the removed text incorrectly.  My intention with the original text was to suggest that someone who was stating something that they knew to be incorrect to make a point would be disrupting the project, and that was an element of dishonesty.  Thoughts? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually don't see anything dishonest about acting as a "Devil's advocate", but I didn't remove it because it's not my essay. However, there's certainly nothing disruptive about it as long as you make it clear that's what you're doing, and I saw this as a misreading of WP:POINT (incidentally, I've nominated the shortcut itself "WP:POINT" at RfD, since that shortcut seems to be a perennial source of misinterpretation of the guideline it points at). --Random832 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the sentence back in for the interim, I think there may be a misunderstanding.  Also, the results of the RfD discussion you mention above suggests that there might be some miscommunication about the nature of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt the project to make a point. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:POINT

message: I've pulled the Mergeto for Wikipedia:Act in good faith, it seems very different from the aims of this essay.  I don't wish to claim any type of dumb old WP:OWNership over this, of course, so if I'm off my rocker, edit away, but please consider bringing it here for discussion too. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mergeto

message: Just a note. Has it occurred to those opposing this proposal how the following statement will read to someone assessing Wikipedia's credibility...
:"Someone proposed honesty guidelines, but they were rejected."
Do you think that looks good, because I don't. I don't want to explain to people why Wikipedia is a worthwhile project if we can't even make a commitment to honesty. This is about more than policy enforcment, it's about how we present the project to the world, and what our values are. --Barberio 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will look just fine, if we do something else that resolves the Essjay problem. A magic word doesn't make this the best or only approach. Personally, I think this does absolutely nothing to solve that problem; it's just grand empty rhetoric. Essjay knew perfectly well that what he was doing was wrong when he used bogus arguments in content disputes. He didn't need this policy to tell him that. And if it becomes more than rhetoric, I agree with Picaroon that it will be destructive. Derex 00:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not nice to talk about nice overtrusting people like that. People who say things like "I don’t really have a problem with it" when told their employee lied to the press just might need a reminder that honesty is important. I think you owe someone an apology for calling him "too thick". I think Jimbo is very smart. WAS 4.250 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I like this as a guideline because it tells those who aren't inclined to be honest: "You're not wanted here."  And I do think that should be our stance. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How will this look? 

message: Don't make me write another of these! - David Gerard 10:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Write one. Write two. Why limit yourself. Heck, why not spend all your time on Wikia. WAS 4.250 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A cautionary note

message: Am I the only one who thinks that quoting a cartoon character here (and not even one particularly known for his honesty) is rather silly? >Radiant< 12:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suitable alternative quote is now used. I hope it meets your approval. --Barberio 20:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-th-that's all, folks 

message: I've reverted a change, and I wanted to open up a discussion here in case anyone disagrees.  I don't own this by any stretch of the imagination, but I felt the change altered the meaning of the essay significantly away from its original purpose.  If I'm a hopped up on goofballs crazy pants person, lemme know. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honesty a requirement? 

message: I'd also like to call your attention to this very short essay I wrote in the wake of the Essjay scandal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proabivouac/Ethics_for_dummies
I've since developed misgivings about items four and five, but I think that the others accurately, if laconically, capture the spirit of what we might be aiming for here. I would not like to see an elaborate essay about what honestly means so much as a practical policy we can point to to desysop and block liars, to which "do not misrepresent sources" would make a fine addition.Proabivouac (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics for dummies

message: * "Editors are reminded that while you may expect an assumption of good faith, this is based on the counter-assumption of honesty in your actions."
* "Does not hide their personal point of view..."
So, if you think another editor is dishonest then you may cease to AGF?  And if you think that another editor is a malicious troll then it would dishonest not to declare your opinion?  And if you have any kind of interest or POV, you must declare it?   Well, it is my honest opinion that this is part of a wave of attempts to undermine WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:PRIV by ad hominem means - "give a dog a bad name and then hang it".  It seems of a part with WP:TEND, WP:CPUSH and the like.  How do we avoid this encroachment?  Are we required to give full disclosure of our occupation, business, financial interests, political allegiance, religious beliefs, nationality, criminal record, sex, age, race, etc before we edit any article which touches on these matters?  Please could the authors of this guideline start this new era of the open kimono by honestly declaring how they plan to enforce and apply it? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Contrary to [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:PRIV]]