Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Irrelevant/reply (9)

Well I am new to this discussion but here are the criticisms that I've seen.


 * 1.) The community wasn't adequately consulted therefore it is bad
 * 2.) The Bieber/GWB objection which, as noted above, is related to an infinitesimal percentage of articles
 * 3.) Even though the aim of the tool is to get reader feedback, only Wikipedian editors should be allowed to use it
 * 4.) The tool doesn't provide enough data to be useful to editors

The fourth criticism is the only one that really has meat to it but it is a multi-faceted issue. On one hand, there is a lack of understanding in how data research/surveys are conducted and the limitation of the "laziness principle". However, the tool can, indeed, be improved but that is the point behind studying the results of a launch--you can't see where to improve until you see how it is being used.

While all the criticisms are worth discussion (which is obviously being done here), I haven't yet seen a single criticism that is worth completely vetoing or shelving this project.

Is there something I missed?