Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your
opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this thread -
but instead your opinion *of what the AFT is*. One possible explanation for
this divide is that you're misunderstanding what the tool is meant to do,
so I'd like to know what you think it is. So far you've instead said a lot
about how much you think it sucks, but nothing on what "it" is, and without
context your posts aren't, honestly, making that much sense.
On 24 December 2011 11:55, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Oliver Keyes
<okeyes(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
The article feedback tool has nothing to do with
approving edits, though.
Lets roll the conversation back; can you succinctly tell me how you
perceive the Article Feedback Tool, or what you know about it? That way
I'll know where you're coming from, and if there are any
misunderstandings
which would explain why we're talking at
cross-threads.
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?
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation