Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Irrelevant/reply (26)

''AFT is collecting casual readers' personal opinions, and trying to turn some of them into brand-new editors. Most casual readers are totally uninformed about what makes a decent encyclopedia article. 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? And if you're not, then why do you keep saying that everyone else is?''

I couldn't have said it better myself. Once again you've made my point for me. What exactly is the point of a ratings system that lures only the most "stupid and intellectually insecure" readers into editing? Anyone who is smart enough (and knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia's policies) to know what an article does and does not need isn't going to pay any attention to this useless tool. So what's the point of it??

By the way, I see there are no takers among the people on here who keep defending this tool to post a link to a single article you've actually written. I think that speaks volumes about the "expertise" behind the logic defending this tool. Know-it-all "editors" who've never actually written a single article.