I feel like your description of the principle of charity doesn't match Wikipedia's description. In particular, misrepresenting somebody else's position is a thi

I feel like your description of the principle of charity doesn't match Wikipedia's description. In particular, misrepresenting somebody else's position is a thing that could happen, so it is important to be able to tell whether it happened. Wikipedia's examples are all about taking claims, and interpreting them in the most reasonable way, in plain English, consistent with typical usage, word meanings, etc. The converse would seem to be like twisting somebody's words. After all, it is perfectly possible for someone to say something, in plain understandable English, mean it, and yet be wrong, so there should be no way the principle of charity can eliminate that possibility: Wikipedia's definition doesn't, whereas yours just might.