Grants talk:IdeaLab/enable everyday users (non-editors) to rate parts of the article

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Note[edit]

I came here too to mention the AFT. That was a big failure of a project. Not the least because the “ratings” which were submitted ended up not being about the quality of the article, but about whether people “liked” the subject. So, articles with high ratings were things like “Justin Bieber” and certain football teams. Equally, we had other popstars and sports teams being down-voted by their opponents. Aside from this, even IF the ratings were useful, there was no mechanism for integrating the feedback. It was not built into any editorial process so it was useless data anyway. Wittylama (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
"Justin Bieber" was rated highly? That's not how I remember it. You have a point though. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Good to mention the AFT on this talkpage. But it wasn't just that the vast majority of the AFT comments were worthless dross mixed in with just a few things that needed oversight. The whole theory behind the AFT was flawed. Wikipedia relies on its volunteer community, and that volunteer community is almost entirely recruited by having readers click the edit button and try to improve articles. A feedback tool that diverts potential editors from improving articles to critiquing them for hypothetical others to improve is demotivating for existing editors, unhealthy for editor recruitment and a poor fit for Wikipedia in both theory and practice. Sorry to be blunt, but this idea looks like a resurrection of the flawed AFT concept. It is a clear breach of the SoFixIt idea that is at the heart of Wikipedia. WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages?[edit]

This is a good idea in essence, but I think that passersby should be pointed towards the talk page to suggest improvement or point out problems or missing information. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)