Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Miscellaneous/Article ratings

Article ratings

  • Problem: Often an interesting and significant article with scientific, educational and simply informative content is marked as insignificant and its relevance is questioned.
  • Proposed solution: To determine the interest of users, enter a rating similar to the likes of social networks - with positive and negative ratings. Based on them, and not on the personal subjective opinion of some "experts", determine the need for an article. If Wikipedia is for the people, then the people, and not low-contact "gurus" should be able to influence what they want to know.
  • Who would benefit: The implementation of the proposed idea will certainly be useful to Wikipedia users, who will be able to find the information they are interested in, even if it is incorrectly formatted.
  • More comments: It's sad that potentially useful articles can be destroyed, while really uninteresting articles about rock musicians, athletes and show business figures stick out of Wikipedia like overcooked dough from a saucepan.

    It is necessary not to delete the information of informative articles that, for various reasons, were compiled ineptly, but to help improve them.

  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Byzeterna (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]



  •   Support Warmglow (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Strong oppose There are so many issue with this. If a rating system were implemented, there will inevitably be users misunderstanding it or intentionally misusing it to rate articles based on what they think of the subject. We can't just delete random articles that were perfectly fine to begin with and are only now being deleted because a few people that have never heard of the topic, are not interested in it, don't understand it, or dislike it. Countless hours of research and years of collaborative hard work being erased all because some Joe Schmoe thinks dolphins are stupid. Besides, we already have much better system to filter out bad articles, it's called Articles for Deletion. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support It's in the WikiProject ratings, but it is only viewed in the talk page of the article. Thingofme (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose The premise that user-based ratings would solve bias towards popular topics is wrong. Editors will not use ratings to choose article to edit anyway. —  HELLKNOWZ  TALK  enWiki 11:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose per Waddles. Silver hr (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose per Waddles. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Can potentially address bias, which is a huge issue on Wikipedia. Otherwise not particularly useful KingAntenor (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Krol111 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose --Nachtbold (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Strong oppose Asking the internet at large for opinions is almost always going to lead to trouble. With no training, no investment in the site nor community, and no incentive to be fair and balanced, the average casual visitor cannot be considered to be objective. I believe we'd see more harm than benefit if we tried to turn unfiltered public opinion into a critical metric. --Bobulous (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose --Pequod76(talk) 23:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Ayumu Ozaki (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --Ciao • Bestoernesto 17:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Encyclopaedia not w:FacemashDaxServer (t · c) 21:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Isn't this already covered by WikiProjects? --//Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 11:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose good reasons listed above; another potential problem is that if an article goes through a massive change, an existing rating wouldn't change right away if it's primarily user-vote-driven like other platforms. An alternative would be to find a way to expand/highlight the existing article classes (stub/start/C/B/A/GA/FA) and classification like vital article, etc. = paul2520 (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Ten minutes on Reddit is enough for me to know why this is a bad idea. Social ratings are the opposite of objective, and would potentially lead to all of the issues that they come with, like brigading. The existing rating system can always be improved. I'm reasonably confident the majority of our readers don't even know we have a rating system, so we could always start there.Asukite (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Strong oppose For all the reasons specified by other "oppose" votes. Matuko (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]