194
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
194 points (99.0% liked)
Games
19079 readers
186 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't know where you seem to feel like this was just a lukewarm response to that. Male fans were absolutely unhinged with hatred over this point.
The Wikipedia entry for Force Awakens literally has a portion dedicated to fan backlash, which also included backlash against Boyega with bullshit crybaby screams of "white genocide" and "cultural marxism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens#Fan_backlash
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially when it comes to general public opinion. It has the habit of magnifying minority/fringe opinions, or making tiny issues seem like they were a huge deal.
According to the edit history of that page, that section did not exist on the page until 2023. Coincidentally, one of the 3 sources cited in that section was published in 2023. They also decided to add two Opinion Editorial articles, one from 2015, and the other from, take a guess, 2023. OpEds have no requirement to be factually correct, and therefore are in general, an awful source of actual information. Including these kinds of articles does not present an extension of good faith, and makes it look like the person adding them is doing it only to present a source, regardless of its credibility, so they can include whatever they are trying to add. All of those edits, including adding that section, were from the same person. That user never made an edit to that page until 2023. And they never made an edit to that page since.
Since 2023, there have been 3 edits. One of them was apparently yesterday, which was instantly reverted. The second edit is interesting because it says "[...]presenting the controversy as being bigger than in reality would lend undue weight to fringe opinions." This edit was, of course, instantly reverted by the same person as before, but they are different from the person that added the Backlash section who was never seen again on this page since 2023.
Looking at this new user's edit history on this page, they started editing the page in 2021 with only a single edit, 3 edits in both 2022 and 2023, and 2 edits in 2025. What is interesting about this user is that they only ever reverted changes to the page; they made no other edits except for reverting edits from other users.
The point being, some users on Wikipedia will decide that they want a specific thing in a Wikipedia page, and will disregard any changes made to them in order to force what they want to be on that page. Sometimes this is warranted because of vandalism (which did not occur, from what I can tell, until yesterday), but most of the time it is because of personal bias from people who have more "trusted" Wikipedia accounts. Wikipedia listing opinions is of course, incredibly dangerous, as it can lead to the general public (who doesn't actually research something or check sources) believing whatever is on the page when they read it. This is why Wikipedia has a policy that doesnt allow individual/personal reviews of movies to be included in articles, for example. This is what makes Wikipedia such an unreliable source, and anyone quoting it should thoroughly review not only the sources cited but also the edit history of the page they are citing.
Wikipedia doesn't have to list opinions. It just has to magnify certain ideas and opinions from other sources, under the guise of impartiality and "Objective Journalism".
“So much for Objective Journalism. Don’t bother to look for it here–not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.” ― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72
I think this is partially discounting the people that do genuinely try their best to keep Wikipedia factual. There are certainly many people that contribute to Wikipedia and do an excellent job trying to maintain factually correct articles all across the site. AFAIK, they are not paid for this. In particular, math related pages tend to be the most pure pages since there is little room for opinion in such a topic.
The problem is that even just 1 user abusing their "control" over a Wikipedia page will throw the entire site's credibility into question. People like that, unfortunately, are often ones that seek out places where they can have "power." Controlling information, or globally accessible pages that document events in history, no matter how small, is incredibly alluring for this kind of person.
It is an issue inherent to the Open-Source style approach of Wikipedia. Anyone can make an edit, but any edit can also be reverted. For topics where opinion is introduced, this often leads to Edit Wars, fighting in Talks, and the eventual locking of the page so no further edits can be made.
We're supposed to take racism and far-right conspiracies as legitimate backlash? Normal people don't care about shit like that. I'm with the other person, the reception was lukewarm because it played it safe.