Viewing profile — FiveOhThree

I understand that you buy heavily into one side of this narrative, but statements like "everyone who actually cared about those issues opposed GamerGate" come across as naive rathe…

I'm sure that the journalists involved would never admit that people putting a spotlight on their bad behaviour made them clean up their act.

That Kotaku piece was a full year after GamerGate, if anything people might question whether it'd have happened if GamerGate hasn't drawn attention to these problems.

That's it though, at the time there were plenty of complaints about the media outlets and publishers. Your problem is that the only people reporting on this to the wider public wer…

Or, you know, people had long been unhappy with the poor state of game reviews and the incident in question prompted broad complaints. Rather than accept criticism the journalists …

To my view it looks more like an attempt to inflate a minor controversy by excessively documenting it. If this much effort were being put into writing about government policy I'd t…

I'm also not American so I'm not well-versed in this topic, but perhaps to raise the obvious: Does Wikipedia really need a page running for thousands of words on Musk allegedly mak…

I meant that I disagree that Wikipedia is really trying to give a general view of events. That might have been the original intention, but it's not what it's doing in practice. It …

Well no, I was also around but not particularly interested at the time. This looks like a classic case of the media trying to close ranks and smear their critics.

> One thing I should clarify is that Wikipedia's purpose is to aggregate the current general view on things. So even if you know something is true personally, you cannot put it in …

> Gamergate or GamerGate (GG) was a loosely organized misogynistic online harassment campaign motivated by a right-wing backlash against feminism, diversity, and progressivism in v…

To be honest I don't keep a list of examples, I usually raise an eyebrow and move on. It's typically on pages for smaller public figures where you get some extremely questionable d…

That's the thing though, expecting users to have a discussion over even minor changes is extremely off-putting for most potential editors. I've also noticed that a few of these edi…

Is it radicalised to want even a basic premise of neutrality in an encyclopedia? Despite not being particularly political, even I raise an eyebrow when an article opens with "____ …

The impression I've had from trying to contribute in the past has been that some editors will fight tooth and nail to prevent changes to an article they effectively own. The maze o…

I can't be the only one who feels that Wikipedia's quality has really started to go downhill over the past 5 or so years. I've noticed more and more articles which read as ridiculo…

Unfortunately the store's primary revenue source seems to be from advertisers bidding on sponsored search result slots instead of the actual product sales.

My mistake, there may have been more than two modes in the older builds. Perhaps it was called "Regular" or something, whatever the default was.

It's a good way to further push away a chunk of your userbase. They're moving towards a touch-friendly UI, but a lot of us just want a compact desktop app that doesn't waste screen…

True, but if you're running a beta test and the feedback is negative, you can't be surprised that people don't feel "respected" when you decide to push the change anyway.

The new "chunky" layout and UI elements are not really an improvement, and a lot of users have been unhappy with this. Despite plentiful feedback about this during beta testing Moz…

I'd feel a lot more 'respected' if they didn't keep forcing unwanted UI changes on me.