On 24 December 2011 11:55, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I freely admit I was being a bit flippant. But that was just because I knew I was in the right. Let us put it this succintly: "Being passive aggressive rather than aggressive about the way things are allowed as valid contributions to the encyclopaedia, is worse than being up front about it". Is that succint enough for you?
I always thought of it as a potential source of useful feedback for those people most interested in editing the article and making it good. (So I see v4 as not very useful in practice because approximate no-one was providing said feedback, and hope the free comment box in v5 will actually get used, there will be a little flag on the watchlist when an article you're watching gets feedback, etc.)
I somewhat see where you're coming from - there's an observable tendency to make Wikipedia less editable (hence the current en:wp community largely treating new editors as a problem to be processed, rather than as colleagues) and people who think like that will use anything they can for it. I don't think AFT is an excellent tool for this job, but we'll be able to tell it's successful when people start trying to abuse the results.
- d.