Many of us at the English version of Wikipedia, where I am a 4+ year veteran, were unaware of the discussion regarding this article feedback poll ratings and were caught off-guard at its implementation without our input or consent. A discussion has started at the WP:Village pump (proposals) regarding this and many of us are very saddened at its rollout without us. I think you'll find we completely would have been against any such rollout. Thank you, and as I dont ever come to MediaWiki, discuss this amongst yourselves, but questions or comments to me personally wont reach me. With regards- disgruntled en:wiki user.148.78.249.33 17:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Topic on Talk:Article feedback
For the record: the topic mentioned is at w:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Ratings poll a distraction? and there is also w:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Disable Article Feedback Tool and Discuss.
"For the record", this has been discussed in numerous locations on en.wiki over at least the last eight months, and it was originally developed by and for the English Wikipedia editors at en:WP:WikiProject United States Public Policy.
So this bit about "without our input or consent" is just nonsense. The people at the English Wikipedia have had far more input than anyone else in any WMF project. WhatamIdoing 19:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
"it was originally developed by and for the English Wikipedia editors at en:WP:WikiProject United States Public Policy"
- This is new information to me. Jorm usually cites the Strategic Plan as the origin of its conception.
"this has been discussed in numerous locations on en.wiki over at least the last eight months"
- Did any of those discussions reach a consensus about implementing the tool?
This is new information to me. Jorm usually cites the Strategic Plan as the origin of its conception.
- There is more info about that on the edition of 2010-09-13 of The Signpost, so I added a link to it in the FAQ.
Thanks.
Did any of the discussions on "numerous locations" reach a consensus about implementing the tool?
Every discussion that I remember seeing was either very brief (one person asks a question and another answers) or ended with at least a weak (and sometimes strong) support for the tool (although not always with every single person being happy about it).
Almost all of the complaints are on this page or at the main en.wiki AFT page. Most of the editors commenting at either of those pages have questions about how to use it, bug reports, suggestions for improvements. These pages have each attracted complaints from about half a dozen individuals like yourself, who personally dislike one or more aspects of it and whose complaints are largely variations on "Turn it off because I don't like it": Turn it off because I don't like the way it looks, Turn it off because I don't like the amount of space it takes on my screen, Turn it off because I don't like the way our readers choose to answer the questions, Turn it off because I don't like allowing mere readers to provide any feedback at all, and Turn it off because I don't like being reminded that the WMF can changing things at "my" website without getting my personal permission. (The other main category of complaint appears to be "I worry that our experienced editor corps will make idiotic choices on the basis of reader feedback", but nobody seems to be making bad choices, so I think it's a misplaced [although rational] worry.)
What is striking to me is how the volume of discussion is split: few editors actually oppose the tool, but those few are willing to post thousands of words to share their opinion and are apparently determined to impose their personal preferences on million of readers. "I don't like it" in their minds seems to mean "so nobody else should be permitted to use it", rather than "so I'm going to disable it for my account and ignore it". People who have questions or bug reports or want it enabled on another project (a repeated request) say their piece and get back to editing as soon as possible: one comment or two, and they're gone. People who think their personal preferences should be imposed on everyone else repeat their complaints for weeks.
So if you look at this page, most of the page, measured by volume of words, is covered by discussions with people who don't like the tool and want it disabled for everyone, but almost all of that volume involves just half a dozen people, who are saying the same things over and over again. If you sort by individual person, rather than number of words or edits, the dominant views are neutral or supportive. Thousands of words from a small handful of people opposed to the tool is not the same thing as widespread opposition to the tool. Wasbeer, for example, has edited this page many dozens of times, but Wasbeer's opinion is still the opinion of just one user.
Wow. That's a little harsh. You've turned that list of complaints into just mere whining. Well, first of all, that list of complaints, or reasons for the tool to be removed (although some less valid than others) seems to be less than that of the reasons for the tool to be used. In fact, as far as I know, there are no reasons for the tool to be used at all.
Also, how about you replace what you said, "I don't like it" in their minds seems to mean "so nobody else should be permitted to use it" with this, "I think it makes no improvement to Wikipedia" in their minds seems to mean "it is unneccesary and distracting". Or how about you turn it around and look at what the other side of the discussion are saying: "I like it" in their minds seems to mean "everyone else must put up with it". It's easy to put a selfish spin on it, and I think there's about the same amount of selfishness coming from both sides of the argument, as there is opinions. Thousands of words from you is not the same thing as widespread support of the tool (You for example, have edited this page many dozens of times, but your opinion is still the opinion of just one user), but I do think you're right in that the overall argument has remained neutral (neither supportive nor opposing).
Personally, I oppose the tool. In my opinion, it is useless, unneccesary, potentially destructive, goes against the nature of wikipedia, is being used for the wrong reasons, is quite easily misinterpreted (both for those rating the page and those interpreting the results), and it ultimately looks ugly. But, hey, that's just my opinion. I'm here to share my opinion in the hope that it is taken into consideration. And it comes down to that. If a small handful of people so passionately oppose this, that they write thousands of words in their defense, then their words should be taken deep into consideration. This is not to say that this passion makes a widespread opposition to the tool, and there's a lot of passion from the other side as well. I don't think there's (or has been) any widespread anything or any kind of consensus on this tool, so perhaps it's time to bring out the "If it ain't broke" philosophy and change it back to the way it was (even though we've all got our opinions on what "broke" is). But yeah, that's pretty much all I have to say.
Your assertion that "I like it" in their minds seems to mean "everyone else must put up with it" is entirely false. You don't have to put up with it, use it, see it, or even remember that it exists. You can turn it off and go about your business at any time. The developers have provided a very simple mechanism for imposing your personal preference on your experience. (Have you done so?)
But apparently that's not good enough for you: you are demanding that WMF impose your personal preference on millions of other people, including the thousands of individuals who have said that they like the tool and want to use it.
How about, "I like it" in their minds seems to mean "I have to get what I want, and this must tool must be used"? Is that any better? Besides, I'm not just talking about my personal preference. I'm talking about removing it for the greater good of the community of Wikipedia. This does involve imposing, but so does your way. Certainly, I don't have to see it or use it, but it will still be there, causing troubles all over wikipedia. Wow, how's that for imposing of thousands of individuals who have said that it won't work, and will cause problems. I'll take that your lack of a response to everything else I said, as "Yes Kilroy, you are correct. I have nothing I can add to your awesomeness..."