Talk:Go90
| This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article whitewashes what happened
[edit ]Seems there are guardians keeping criticisms out of Thea Erick. How about this [1] article from yesterday. Can’t have this article’s content in here. It cites Angiolet, explains how poorly the product was designed and managed. And the editors who are working for Verizon won’t let a word of this get into the article.70.83.230.212 (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
- yes, the horshitometer his high on this one.184.149.39.3 (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
"As of 7/30 go90 will no longer be available. Check our FAQs for more info."
[edit ]69.181.23.220 (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
- https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/go90-shutting-down-verizon-1202860864/ 69.181.23.220 (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
Repeated reverts
[edit ]An editor doesn't like this article when it brings up criticism from reliable sources. He or she doesn't say the content is not supported by sources. Only that it's not to their liking in terms of tone. The article has been stable for months, except for this editors efforts to scrub documented critiques. I'd like other editors to weigh in here.70.83.230.212 (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC) [reply ]
- Yes, I will weigh in. You are pushing the POV that every statement must paint the service in a negative light by incorporating loaded, informal, sensationalist statements and descriptions into the body text, such as "revolving door", how the sale of AwesomenessTV was described, "categorized the service as being like YouTube but not as good", not crediting specific critics, use of scare quotes, and so on. My version is in a more chronological order, has actual explanations of the insider statements, and uses separate sections (Reception and demise) to express reactions and the fate of the service. There is nothing different in actual content between your insisted version and mine, besides wording and structure. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC) [reply ]
- Quotes are used for accuracy and pulled directly from reliable sources. You've eliminated a lot more than you let on.70.83.230.212 (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC) [reply ]
- It's not the content, but how you use it that gives it a non-neutral feel. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC) [reply ]
- Quotes are used for accuracy and pulled directly from reliable sources. You've eliminated a lot more than you let on.70.83.230.212 (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC) [reply ]