Talk:Article feedback/FAQ

And I don't mean a handful of WMF people agreeing with eachother.

On English Wikipedia I didn't find consensus on w:Wikipedia:Village pump and its subpages (neither for "full" deployment or for removing the tool), but on Portuguese Wikipedia the consensus for using it is here.

It's probably all part of a streamlining process. Governance, progress, and improvement of the Wikipedia by consensus is often replaced by ideas implemented by small groups of the WMF staff, or small task forces of editors (fellowships) specially designated by the WMF. The main advantages are that decisions can then be reached and implemented more quickly, and decisions that are reached by consensus of the community can be declined by the WMF staff if they do not consider them to be appropriate. The disadvantages are that the smaller groups of WMF developers and deciders may sometimes not necessarily have the hands on experience, or extensive background knowledge to be truly addressing the needs of Wikipedia readers, editors, or the site software, and may not always accord sufficient audience to those outside their workgroup that do.

Who says that consensus is needed? en:WP:You don't own Wikipedia: the WMF does. They can do whatever they want with the English Wikipedia, including shutting down the whole thing, making the text run in red letters over a black background, or banning every 17th user simply because they feel like it.

But let me repeat for you what you've been told many times: Consensus is not a matter of people writing down that they do, or don't, agree with something. Consensus is a matter of people agreeing to do something.

If a tool is getting used (and it is), then there is a consensus for using that tool. We have exactly as much consensus for the "Edit this page" button as we do for the AFT: people are voluntarily using it, therefore people have agreed to use it. Nobody's forcing them use it: if they did not voluntarily agree to use it, then they would not actually use it. Their use constitutes proof of their agreement/their consensus. Even as defined at en:WP:Consensus, consensus is about an agreement to do something, not about messages on talk pages or jumping through bureaucratic hoops.

Who says that consensus is needed? en:WP:You don't own Wikipedia: the WMF does. They can do whatever they want with the English Wikipedia, including shutting down the whole thing, making the text run in red letters over a black background, or banning every 17th user simply because they feel like it.

That sounds so much NOT like this... X-Mas soon. Next time Jimmy wants to tell me something about freedom and democracy on WP I may just ignore it cos I saw how much the WMF really cares about the community. As mentioned before, it reminds me of mafia style tactics...

So my guess was right and a handful of WMF people agreeing with eachother is all that is needed to add an useless tool like this to all articles on WP. Sure, I don't have to use it and can hide it. But the majority is logged out and can't disable it. Instead 99% of the viewers are faced with useless fake/fan/hate votes as if it were crappy youtube video pages. The image of WP is not increasing that way and new editors won't join either just cos they see Buch is rated 2/5 (main goal of AFT as you said).

Hi. Since november 5 the tool is available in all es:WP articles. I think this should be included. I already did in the proper section in spanish version of this FAQ. I know there is an official request but I don´t know where exactly. Cheers.

Thank you for doing that.

Hi. Recently AF has been implemented in es:WP and some users are interesting in translate this FAQ page into spanish. Is there any chance? I can do it but I need to know where to do it. Thanks. --Andreateletrabajo 16:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to translate page Article_feedback/FAQ, create article with name Article_feedback/FAQ/es.

Thanks. In process.

And why can people rate their own articles 5/5 right after creating them?

Because Bug #29212 is not fixed yet. Consider voting for it.

I only have 999 votes left. I may need them for bugs related to useful things ;)

The question in the thread title remains tho.

Feel free to vote on some of my favorites... ;-)

AFT is not ment to improve articles?

Personally, I think bug #31022 (+free-text field) and/or bug #30334 (+dashboard options) will need to be (at least partially) fixed before that could happen.

See also Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Extended aticle feedback RFP.

FYI: there is an open request on bugzilla which is related to one of the topics mentioned on this page:

• Bug 21209 - Provide new special pages for statistics on the number of references tags <ref> per article

I am currently using a script to collect data on demand on the number of citations (or citation needed templates) over time for an article and compare it to the scores and total volume of ratings the article generates, but I think something like this would be relatively easy to implement as part of the AF dashboard.

Is the script source code available somewhere?

I need to add some basic documentation and I can share it, ping me if you don't hear from on this in the next couple of days.

Any updates?

I am waiting to have toolserver access to upload this stuff, if someone knows how to speed up my approval...

So, did you get toolserver access?

Hi Helder, I did – we are now working to make sure the toolserver DB is sync'ed with the main server so we can pull AFT data in real time.

Hi!

I'm sorry, but I think I missed something:

• Where is this real time data available? here
• Where can I see the source code of your script?

Thanks!

And why is the FAQ using subjunctive here while all of the points are not possible scenarios but the only real results AFT produces?

Why are you trying to make everyone believe that there is no abuse?
Wait, you do not? You actually only say that abusive votes have no impact? Then how do real votes by experienced users?

Can anyone point us to it?

Can anyone point us to some?

The trend of abusive fake / fan / hate ratings over the years?