Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Irrelevant/reply (53)

I'm sorry if your own twisted logic has backfired, but if anyone is "lying", it's you. You've mentioned at LEAST a hundred times here that this tool is WONDERFUL because new users will view the ratings and will be magically "inspired" to edit the articles that the tool indicates are in such desperate need of their help. You've also stated that only an idiot would pay any attention to the tool's results. The only logical conclusion is that only an idiot would be inspired to edit because of this tool. Now you're changing your logic to say - "the VAST MAJORITY of new editors will be smart enough to disregard the tool". Ok, fine - let's say that's true - Then this now new and improved "logic" of yours only proves how useless the tool is.

Getting back to the subject of what I was saying originally about users being "misled" by editors arbitrarily tagging a page with "bias" templates (with absolutely NO explanation) and/or by viewing this ratings tool. I admit I didn't expand on my point enough, so I'll try and explain myself better..

Let's take the Barack Obama article as an example (I know everyone is sick hearing about the Obama page, but it's just for the purpose of an example). It's a featured article. Now I would say I know about as much as the AVERAGE American about the man. No more, no less, just AVERAGE. I have a pretty good idea about the man over the last 3 years, but for the first 40-something years of his life, I'm most definitely NOT anything CLOSE to an "expert". He seems like a nice enough guy, I don't have anything against him personally, but I just haven't spent all my time researching the man's life (nor do I care to). So I come to the article, I read the entire thing, and then I'm asked to "rate" the article on FOUR criteria. Again, I'd say I have just about the "average" American's knowledge about the man. I would say I'm COMPLETELY unqualified to vote on three of the four criteria. First question, "Trustworthiness": (which is basically asking if the sources are "reliable". I can honestly say I haven't the faintest idea.  I mean checking/verifying the 300+ notes cited on the page would be the equivalent of reading an entire BOOK about him, and that's not even counting the books the article cites as references.  I'm not (nor is the "average" reader) going to sit there and check EVERY SINGLE source to judge the article's "trustworthiness".  If I wanted to spend WEEKS reading stacks of books about the man I wouldn't be visiting Wikipedia to look him up.  Next question, "Objectivity": yet ANOTHER question I, as an "average" reader, would be COMPLETELY unqualified to judge unless I checked every single one of the 300+ sources/references cited on the page.  I mean aside from some GLARING bias, how would I know if it's "objective" unless I read EVERY SINGLE SOURCE the article cites to compare the article to??? Next question, "Completeness": Once again, how the hell do I know if it's "complete"??? Aside from some HUGE omission, I would have to spend WEEKS checking EVERY SINGLE source/reference to know if something I thought was important was left out. The ONE criteria I'd say I'm reasonably qualified to judge is how "Well-written" the Barack Obama article is.. Now, as a Wikipedia editor, I know it's reasonable to believe what I read on the Barack Obama article is true/fair/complete because: #1 - It's a FEATURED Article which means I can reasonably expect that all the claims and sources to back them up have been thoroughly vetted. #2 - The page is LOCKED from "casual" (even possibly well-meaning) editors who know NOTHING about Wikipedia's criteria. and #3 - There are a THOUSAND trusted Editors watching the page every minute like hawks. All indicators which the "average" reader most likely knows nothing about.

This all leads into what I was talking about before - If someone were to tag a "bias" template on the Barack Obama page (and there wasn't a "featured" star on the page, which I, being an experienced enough editor, KNOW Wikipedia does NOT hand out lightly), then YES, I would probably think to myself even BEFORE reading the article - "Wow, this "bias" template has been her for six months, so I better take EVERYTHING I read here with a grain of salt". I'm not even close to being an "expert" on Barack Obama, so I wouldn't have any way to judge first-hand unless I decided to become an "expert" and devote the next six months of my life to researching his life story. It definitely makes the "average" person question the "trustworthiness", "objectivity", and "completeness" of what they read. The exact same thing applies to this tool - Yes, experienced Wikipedia editors (who aren't in denial) know about the disproportionately high number of fan/hate votes the tool is recording across THOUSANDS of pages, but it may very well not even cross the "average" reader's mind that 90% of the low votes are from 14-year-old nazi skinheads who hate Obama and haven't even READ the article. Unless someone is an "expert" on the subject of an article they're reading (although, I don't know why anyone would be reading a Wikipedia article they already knew EVERYTHING about), they're just an average person, they're NOT going sit there and check out 50, or 100, or 300 sources on a page (many of which are two or three or four pages long EACH). Many readers are just going to look at the fan/hate ratings and assume that SOMETHING must be wrong. This doesn't necessarily mean a person is an idiot. It just means that the average reader isn't going to do the HOURS, or DAYS, or WEEKS of research to verify all the sources. Unless a person is an "expert" about the ratings tool AND the subject of the article, this fan/hate tool has the very REAL potential to make it seem like there's something specious about the entire article, no matter HOW good it actually is on the quality scale. Of course I have no proof how that will affect anyone who has been tricked into editing as a result of viewing this tool, but my point was about how the average READER thinks of Wikipedia after they READ a page. Viewing the tool, they may disregard very GOOD information as "myth", or take an article filled with lies and inaccuracies as being COMPLETELY trustworthy, unbiased and complete. Aside from being useless in the attempt to lure even remotely "qualified" editors (as your own logic has concluded), my LARGER point was that it has the potential to be HIGHLY misleading to the READERS with regards to how they should evaluate the accuracy of an article. If the purpose of the tool is to get people to take Wikipedia more seriously, I'd say it's MUCH more likely to have the exact OPPOSITE effect.