Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Irrelevant/reply (25)

You still don't seem to get it: AFT is not trying to determine the True™ quality of the articles. 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. Something with a lot of blue numbers that lead to personal blogs is often going to be called "well-referenced" by some of these readers. A stub that happens to contain the one tidbit of information they want is going to be called "complete" by some of these readers. But that's okay, because our smarter editors know that if they want information on the actual quality of the article, use the 1.0 team's assessment system. AFT is not trying to duplicate that.

Also, your assertion that people's opinions will be swayed by the ratings is either nonsensical or shows an appalling level of disrespect for the readers. 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?