I must ask; Is there a community consensus for the planned full deployment of this on all English Wikipedia articles on 31 May 2011? I see comments scattered here and there on enwp and on this wiki. Some comments are positive and some are negative. Does the community want it, or is it just the Foundation that wants it? Has the community been given ample opportunity to properly give feedback about the AF-project?
Topic on Talk:Article feedback
I think it is fairly clear from various discussions at enWP including w:en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Article_Rating_appears_immediately_after_creation.3F that there is not consensus for this deployment, at least in the present form of the tool. This is a major content related issue, not a narrow technical one, and I think a very broad consensus would be needed. there are unfortunate similarities to the earlier premature pre-emtive actions on article protection with a tool that did not meet the needs and expectations of the community--and has consequently been totally rejected when it might have been improved and used productively. If the developers wish to show any respect at all for the project they are serving, this should be postponed. (I am not sure there would be consensus for its broader use at all, considering some of the comments; I am fairly sure that would be consensus that it certainly must not be used on new short articles.
Actually, I very much doubt that there could have been done much to have Pending Changes pass community consensus. Everything pretty much has been tried in my opinion.
It should be mentioned that the Software deployments was updated and the entry of full deployment on all enwp articles 31 May was removed but the question of community support for deployment of the tool is still unanswered.
At least for Portuguese, Spanish and Basque Wikipedia, there is support for deployment of the tool: Thread:Talk:Article_feedback/Eswiki_article_feedback.
- Merged post from "Could someone open a discussion page for this on en.wiki?"
Any chance anyone could open a discussion page for this on en.wiki? It would be nice to see the results of any discussion about the trial and as I'm sure everyone here knows there are mixed feelings about both the concept and the design. Thanks. 81.109.118.115 09:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
A "What is this?"-link will soon be added to the tool, proposed to point to this page on enwp. In the meantime discussions have started here and here.
Thanks, but I think we need a dedicated page to discuss this, neither of those is appropriate for what is a content related discussion. 81.109.118.115 04:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is free to start a discussion on Wikipedia. Those I linked to are the two I've found that currently talk about it. If you don't want to join any of them you are free to do so too. :-)
I was hoping maybe someone from the Article feedback/Public Policy Pilot/Workgroup might start a page, or at least someone directly involved. That would give it more 'official' standing and make sure someone involved with it was involved with the page. Dougweller 09:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This post was posted by Doug Weller, but signed as Dougweller.
I was hoping some of them would comment on my post on the technical village pump, but none has so far. Of the comments I've read, I've come across two or three "I don't mind"s but so far no "This is why"s.
I've had good talks with Jorm on IRC (Thank you, buddy!), but the talk should really be on the wiki so more users can follow and comment.
Still no community consensus for the full deployment of the current version of the AFT?... and it is the 15th of April 2012... 
Von Restorff, this will apparently surprise you, but the WMF does not require permission from "the community" to do anything the WMF wants with the WMF's own websites.
You might also like to reflect on the gap between "listen to" and "instantly obey". The devs have listened to complaints about the early versions of the AFT, and have even incorporated many constructive suggestions into the future version. It is true that they have not instantly obeyed the demands of a very small number of noisy en.wp users to disable a feature that is being used by thousands of users every week, but "obey" is not a required component of "listen to".
If you personally can't stand the tool, then you personally should read and follow the instructions at Article feedback/FAQ#How do I disable the tool? instead of demanding that the WMF obey your demands to run their websites the way that you would prefer.
Please stop pretending you are in the majority. Of course there are more people who vote 1-1-1-1 for George W. Bush and 5-5-5-5 for Justin Bieber then people who A want to help B actually understand Wikipedia and computers in general well enough to think about how to improve its features and C know how to leave feedback (which is hard for newbies because the discussion about this feature is hosted on another wiki-project that uses the cursed LiquidThreads). Please stop pretending anyone who disagrees with you is 'noisy' (trolling). Almost all suggestions made by those noisy guys were implemented in version 5. If the current version of the AFT was removed as soon as it was clear that it was pointless then we wouldn't have wasted an awful lot of people's time. We wasted people's time who wanted to improve Wikipedia, the people you call 'noisy' wanted to prevent that from happening. Please remember the fact that all ratings gathered by the AFT before version 5 will be relocated to /dev/null because it is all useless. But don't take my word for it, go download it yourself. How useful is that data to you?
"You believe the data is not useful" and "You believe that there is no community consensus to have this tool" are completely unrelated statements. My reply relates to the second statement, which is the claim made in the 15 April 2012 posting.
I'm not "pretending" anything here: I know that there is community support for the tool, and I also know that the editors aren't ultimately in charge.
Support from certain members of a community is not the same thing as community consensus...