Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Flawed and just useless/reply (8)

I apologise, Ms WhatamIdoing.

Actually you may need to change that FAQ. The question stated is "Are you suggesting that a high or low rating means that an article needs to be improved?". The given answer is no, when certainly in my case it should be yes. I am suggesting that. I think it is trying to say that the "No" answers the question, "Does a high or low rating mean that an article needs to be improved?". Since the "Are you suggesting" bit is important, you may need to change the answer.

However, the answer given anyway, is as I described your answer earlier (no offense intended towards politicians). It generally avoids the question in an attempt to keep its dignity intact. Since you do not know all of the effects, what was the intended purpose of the tool? Don't wriggle your way out of that one either, and don't answer with reader engagement, because there would have been other reasons. If you do not know the effects of the tool, then it is perhaps unwise to put it in place. However, I understand that you are still studying it, so just consider all of this in your study.

If engagement "seems" to be increased, is it for the right reason? I am not sure that rating the subject is at all relevant. Just reconsider the Hitler argument, and ask yourself if it is really worth it. I don't think that the teacher analogy is entirely appropriate. Wikipedia is not a teacher. And besides, amongst experimental teaching methods, no teacher asks a student if they like differential calculus, for example, as a part of the curriculum (However, it is generally assumed that they do not). More readers is a nice prospect, but it is still not the job of an encyclopedia to ask whether people like the subject or not. As to less vandalism, that is also desirable, but a rating on a page isn't going to change a vandal's mind.

Anyway, maybe you are right. The effort may not be worthless, as it will prove that the tool is useless. I encourage you to hurry up with your study, so you can remove the tool. You are clearly just caught up with the notion of it that you are just making excuses for its inclusion.