Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Irrelevant/reply (27)

AFT is collecting casual readers' personal opinions... No, it's collecting abusive fake / fan / hate votes by logged out spammers and people who misunderrstand the tool. Nothing else. Trends of these over time may be interesting but do not add any value to WP content.

...and trying to turn some of them into brand-new editors. Trying to turn abusers into editors is a nice goal but pure waste of time.

If you read an entire article, and you think it's pretty good, and then you see that it's been rated low, are you so stupid and intellectually insecure as to chuck your whole opinion out the window and adopt the view on the page? No, I would think the rating is bad or was abused by questionable people. I maybe would wonder why the responsible people do not improve the rating tool to avoid such. Surely I would wonder what the goals of the tool actually are if fake / fan / hate votes by anonymous users is obviously accepted. I then may read the FAQ and find out that AFT has no purpose except development timelines of abusive votes becoming "interesting". Maybe I would end up on this epic feedback page and find out that all of my observed disadvantages and the uselessness of this tool have been reported here in full detail with lots of suggestions how to improve it but everythings has been greatfully ignored by the officials. I would surely be surprised how officials interact with feedback reporters and try to silence them in order to push AFT. But you're right, I would not edit any article.

...are you so stupid and intellectually insecure... I've read such personal attacks so often by you now, I wonder if YOU are. Are you working for WMF? I hope not.

Most casual readers are totally uninformed about what makes a decent encyclopedia article So let them rate the quality of encyclopedia articles!