Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Most casual readers are totally uninformed about what makes a decent encyclopedia article/reply

Is there a single reason to actually believe that there is 95% abuse happening?

But the benefits that I see are


 * It is immensely worthwhile to get the viewpoints of readers who are using our product and who shape the public perception of Wikipedia. Again, Marketing Research/Common Sense 101--If you don't know what you're consumers think about your product, you're not delivering on their expectations.
 * If, say for instance, Wikipedia's articles on various diseases and cancers were getting consistently low marks from readers on readability and accuracy, it would be nice to catch on to that before someone does a study that gets published by the mainstream media.


 * Once the dashboard has been enhanced and becomes sortable by categories, Wikiprojects can begin tracking the data on articles within their scope to see what kind of trends develop. Not only will it give a snapshot of article traffic but will, more importantly, show which articles that the reader cared enough about to give reader feedback---something the other article traffic tools can't do.
 * Then, once trends emerge in the ratings, the Wikiprojects can look more critically at certain articles that are consistently getting negative feedback. Any "Fan/Hater" abuse would be easy discernible with common sense, especially looking over several months of trends regarding an article. But for the vast majority of articles which are not impacted by "fans/haters", this trend data becomes very valuable and can be used by Wikiprojects to improve articles that consistently get warranted negative feedback.