Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Irrelevant/reply (22)

Exactly. It reminds me of what bugs me when editors will tag an article with a "biased" template without explaining why on the talk page (even well-meaning, well-respected editors will do this routinely). It casts a shadow over the ENTIRE article, and sends a flag to readers that there's something specious about the article as a whole (whether the average reader has personally found any problems with it, most readers will think - "well, it looks good, but there must be SOMETHING wrong with it"). And I don't want to hear this b#llcr@p about me whining just because I personally "disagree" with the voting results. I posted SEVERAL examples (taken from the dashboard page yesterday) of good articles that were rated "B-Class" or higher (presumably by people who actually KNOW something about Wikipedia's GA standards), but had mysteriously received the "lowest" ratings by casual "users", but this was summarily dismissed. I mean the Barack Obama article is CONSISTENTLY among the lowest rated articles on the dashboard almost EVERY SINGLE day i've looked, and that's a FEATURED article for Chrissakes.. It's like there are people here who are DETERMINED to bury their heads in the sand - no matter how many people report problems or how many examples we give they just keep telling us "it's infinitesimal". What they can't seem to wrap their little heads around is the fact that the Justin Bieber and Barack Obama articles are representative of THOUSANDS of articles that DON'T show up in the dashboard. I'm not pretending to be a mathematician, but it stands to reason - if half the articles voted lowest in the dashboard on any given day are celebrity pages with good to very good "quality scale" ratings then any reasonably sane person could (and would be naive not to) infer that 50% of all Wikipedia articles being rated are celeb pages getting the same meaningless votes that have no bearing on the merits of the article whatsoever. The dashboard is a random sampling of 50 articles that clearly shows the TYPES of articles that are most frequently vandalized. I just don't understand what the point is in creating a "Feedback" page, when it's obvious nobody here wants any honest feedback. If this was really about feedback, then our contributions wouldn't be dismissed as "infinitesimal" and we wouldn't be accused of simply coming here because of "sour grapes" about an article we've written receiving low ratings. That's simply not the case. In fact - I'd like to invite anyone who seems to love this tool so much to link to two articles they've written here (and not just articles they've added one or two sentences to, I mean an article they wrote from SCRATCH, or took-up as a "stub") so I can see their work and evaluate their Wikipedia "expertise" for myself. It can be any subject - anything - it doesn't matter - I'd LOVE to see what you've written, and I'll be more than happy to post two of my recent articles I've written as well. Anyone.....? Anyone.......?