Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Irrelevant/reply (39)

It is healthy to have civil discourse, though truthfully, it becomes increasingly less civil when folks start dismissing the "intellectual level" of people who simply disagree with them and start assuming omniscience over their editing history and experience.

Right back atcha. I couldn't have said it better myself. Try taking some of your own advice, and we wouldn't have the problems we see on this page.

I don't have a problem with editors who feel the tool is working in the areas of Wikipedia they're most experienced in. I RESPECT their work, and would NEVER tell someone their experience was "infinitesimal". I've already stated that I'm sure the tool DOES work on many types of articles that are far less likely to be vandalized. However, by the clear statistics - those types of articles only make up about HALF of the encyclopeida's daily traffic as a whole (not very good averages).

I know you're still clinging to this 1% myth you've been desperately trying to perpetuate, but (short of cataloging all 3 million + articles) the BEST evidence we have is the dashboard and, I'm sorry, your absurd assumption that the articles showing up in the dashboard are the ONLY ones experiencing this HUGE problem isn't holding water with anyone else here (except WhatamIdoing).

The only thing that "frustrates" me is seeing how many people were summarily dismissed when they posted the problems they were experiencing here. The difference is the average person will just leave when met with an obnoxious user, whereas I'm not inclined to be so readily dismissed as "infinitesimal". A little advice - when someone posts here, they don't need you, or anyone else, to "rate" the feedback they leave on the ratings tool. It's not necessary for you to leave a snotty comment on EVERY SINGLE criticism of the tool. You've made it clear you love this tool, the vast majority of people here disagree with you - DEAL WITH IT.