One 5 star rating is worse than 1000 4.5 average ratings. There's a few ways to deal with this, Bayesian average is one.

I think for most aggregate ratings, thumbs up/down is all the useful signal you can get. If you're reading a review, it can be useful to see someone say "I gave this 3.5 stars instead of 4 because the last time I went there the fries were cold." However, on aggregate, that distinction becomes almost entirely lost given 1) peoples varying rating schemes (my 4 could be your 3 stars) and 2) often lovers/haters will just give 5/0 stars, drowning out any nuance. That's why Steam and Netflix switched to thumbs up/down.

The categories are wonky--under TV shows I found Netflix, a video game franchise, running shoes (!)... Maybe have user generated tags?

That's why Bayesian average is superior; if you don't have enough ratings you basically get assigned the average for all products (or, likely, all similar products in this case).

Would it bother you if I started re-wrote the Wikipedia article on the hot dog in an attempt to convince everyone I invented it? And if people started believing that?

I imagine "small hands" would similarly work poorly as a defense against a defamation suit from Trump: he doesn't have to claim he has small hands, only that he is often depicted as having them.

Seems to be pretty explicit that they don't like the language, not the creator or his political views. I don't like Java, the few times I was forced to use it I hated it, but I don't even know who the creators are.

Like someone else said, for someone to go through such lengths to claim many of their points, it's a pretty tenuous connection to hang half your article on.

I don't think that's sufficient--tinfoil doesn't stretch, but it doesn't fold nearly as neatly as paper.