Is this something you actually know or is it just an assumption? If the former do you have a link to a blog post or something that talks about it?

You should check out War!. That's pretty much the current gold standard for 'Why would you publish this?', as far as bad writing and editorial decisions go.

In specific, we're talking about :

Basic spellchecker errors like homophones being swapped
Whole sections of the SR5 rulebook that were deprecated playtests (Trolls and Lifestyle costs) going to print not once but twice
Sample characters are not legal builds
Direct rules contradictions in different sections of the SR5 book. See 'bricking' for the most often argued one.
Catalyst going to print with both the $400 leather bound special editions and a second printing run of the SR5 core book with the known errors still uncorrected despite both months of public callouts
The very proofreaders who're credited on SR5 books pointing out that the final poofs they submitted were not the ones used to publish
The 'Arbeit Macht Frei' section of War! going to press. At all.
The writer responsible for the Wireless Bonuses section of the SR5 main book having been given completely different instruction as to the design goals than what was published
Adept powers printed in Street Grimoire with a prerequisite power that wasn't in print (Keratin Control) until the Shadow Spells e-book months later. Whoops!

Additionally, fun issues like art in the Gun Heavens books having been found to be minor Photoshops of article pictures from Wikipedia is a thing that's happened, as well.

Beyond that into actual game design, we have the whole issue of the wireless bonus rules being nonsensical. The writer who wrote the bonuses wrote them on the assumption that devices could still be networked directly internally, and as such major standard features of cyberware are tied to the wireless system. This means that those characters least likely to expose themselves to digital attack, bleeding-edge street samurai, are forced to do so in order to get their 'ware to work properly. Also in the WTF game design bucket is 5e Technomancers, who are essentially identical to mages, only with their Magic attribute reskinned as Resonance. Apparently technopathy and technoempathy are hindered if that technology happens to be attached to you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

Then there's the splatbooks, with fun things like the Infinite Karma Loop from Street Grimoire's Essence Drain rules that essentially voids the whole reason Aztechnology ever got involved with blood magic, and makes it clear that the only reason the Great Dragons don't have literally infinite statistics is because they choose not to. After all, lift one Karma (or Essence, or Magic) from every employee of Sader-Krupp and give it to Lofwyr as a Christmas bonus every year...

Is this something you actually know or is it just an assumption? If the former do you have a link to a blog post or something that talks about it?

and If You're wondering why We're still here and still playing Shadowrun.

and If You're wondering why We're still here and still playing Shadowrun.
For Me it's because I still love the Game (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

HougH!
Medicineman

(my Houserule for a Mix of SR4A and 5 Rules is a Skill level of 9(10) with a maximum of +4(+5) from any other source be it Item,Magic,'ware, whatever. It's the same as with Attributes, I like my Rules simple and streamlined )

another Example ist the Skillrating
Rating 6(7) from SR4A was too low so it was great when I heard that they raised the Skilllevel in SR5
but a rating of 12 (13) is way to High it can hardly be reached by Player Chars (or only with an enormous amount of Karma)
NSCs otoh have no such a hindrance, now official NSCs have Pools of 15 or even 20 Dice but some Players are happy if their Char reaches a pool of 10 Dice
ImO thats the same : Basically a good Idea(to raise the Skill Rating) ,but the Implementaition failed
(my Houserule for a Mix of SR4A and 5 Rules is a Skill level of 9(10) with a maximum of +4(+5) from any other source be it Item,Magic,'ware, whatever. It's the same as with Attributes, I like my Rules simple and streamlined )

with a simmple and streamlined Dance
Medicineman

how about one attack action per round. Nothing like having a simple action to spend and being told you can't do something that normally requires a simple action because... reasons or something. This (and similar bad rules already mentioned) destroys the concept of player agency, which is central to PnP RPGs. It just shouldn't happen.

I hear a lot about bad writing in 4th & 5th editions, but I don't remember reading anything that I would have said was overly bad, though I haven't read all the 4th edition or 5th edition stuff yet. I'm genuinely curious (I’m also a writer), so any examples as to what people consider truly bad writing? Are we talking rules not explained as clearly as they could be? Is it bad spelling, grammar, or incorrect word usage, or just typos? Is it the ideas that suck rather than the actual writing, i.e. the creative direction?

Regarding rules with no logical in-game justification: how about one attack action per round. Nothing like having a simple action to spend and being told you can't do something that normally requires a simple action because... reasons or something.

My biggest problem with SR5 is the rulebook layout - constantly having to flip back and forth makes it very hard to get into the flow and just read and understand the rules. I think the rest of the rulebook presentation is quite good - the artwork and fluff pieces are pretty solid.

It was here on Dumpshock. The author (necro-something with a dragon avatar (Necrosis? Necrosys?)) complained about our wifi online bonus complaints, asked why we did not find GITS cool (without knowing the GITS-Background) and when we explained our issues with the wifi bonuses to him he responded that we did not understand the rules, we posted the rules and he had to admit that he did not know the official rules because something totally different was said to him.

....I don't think there's anything in the 5e RAW that offends plausibility too badly.

I partially agree, but a significant amount really was bad. As for your technical rationale, I find it entirely unbelievable.

I picked up the 5e book and read it before reading any forum stuff about the edition. Coming to various boards later, the weirdest thing for me is the amount of hate wireless bonuses get; reading the book I had no problem with the idea.

Here's how I think about it:
1. The 5e Matrix, and all devices on it, operate on some kind of distributed Cloud-computing architecture.
2. Availability of this Cloud-based infrastructure is assumed in the design of basically everything.
3. So, anything that's disconnected from the Matrix doesn't work quite right.

Those three alone are enough to handle any wireless bonus that requires any kind of processing power, but even things like the extendable baton can make sense in this framework:
Can you turn wireless on the baton off, and then connect it to your commlink with a cable? Sure, but:
1. If your commlink is connected to the Matrix, hackers can get at your baton by going through your commlink; treat this as exactly the same as having your baton slaved to your commlink and having both wireless. So, it doesn't get you anything to do this.
2. If your commlink isn't connected to the Matrix, you don't get the magic of extremely responsive DNI, your commlink+baton alone just don't have the processing power to pull this off. Using your DNI to flip baton modes is now no faster than just hitting a physical button. So, it doesn't get you anything to do this.

See, if you think about things this way, I don't think there's anything in the 5e RAW that offends plausibility too badly.

The plausibility problem with the baton is that you would even need processors and mechanisms to snap open the baton. Really, modern snap batons open quickly, without anything added. To make them open electronically, you'd actually have to add weight-- adding magnets and solenoids to force it open, instead of letting a quick flip of the wrist do it. On top of that, triggering a solenoid doesn't even need a computer-- I once built a system that fired forty-two solenoids in precise sequence, without using a computer chip, just timed toggles.