FiveOhThree

13 ms·

1.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
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 rather than informed. Sure, the label of GamerGate was
2.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
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.
3.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
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.
4.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
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 were the very journalists that the group were criticising.
5.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
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 in focus instead decided to use their platforms to smear the
6.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
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 totally agree with you, but this level of detail is unch
7.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
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 making a Nazi salute? It's longer than some of t
8.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
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 does all hinge on that important list of acceptabl
9.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
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.
10.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
> 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 unless you can find a reliable place where someone h
11.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
> Gamergate or GamerGate (GG) was a loosely organized misogynistic online harassment campaign motivated by a right-wing backlash against feminism, diversity, and progressivism in video game culture Okay, what the actual fuck? IIRC it was
12.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
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 descriptions. It's also definitely a thing for
13.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
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 editors seem to be deliberately abrasive towards new
14.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
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 "____ is a <negative label>, <negative label>, &l
15.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
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 of rules and regulations makes it far too easy to simply
16.
by FiveOhThree 8mo ago
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 ridiculously partisan, usually around subjects with a
17.
by FiveOhThree 1y ago
Unfortunately the store's primary revenue source seems to be from advertisers bidding on sponsored search result slots instead of the actual product sales.
18.
by FiveOhThree 5y ago
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.
19.
by FiveOhThree 5y ago
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 space with excessive padding. The proper sol
20.
by FiveOhThree 5y ago
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.
21.
by FiveOhThree 5y ago
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 Mozilla have basically opted to force it through anyw