Context:
The article in question was well sourced, factually accurate, and written by a well-renowned author and journalist whose work appears elsewhere too, regardless of which outlet published it.
Nonetheless, Jordan Lund is once again blindly trusting a pro-zionist conservative outlet masquerading as a bias and fact checker that nothing from anywhere that criticizes the fascist apartheid regime can be reliable 🤦
Wikipedia is a god send for how communal fact reporting. I love how they list accepted sources, sources considered fine in some instances, and out right refuse to have some ever listed, except for documentation of themselves as a reference, some don’t even get that treatment, just forever barred.
I do love going to the wikipedia pages about times wikipedia has caught itself in a cycle of where:
Someone edited Wikipedia without a citation -> A place used this as a citation of sorts -> the place is now cited on wikipedia, as a source of why its trueLike fun fact, the name of the Pringles mascot was invented by an editor of wikipedia as a joke before wikipedia caught it. Julius Pringle was the name of the dude according to a college student who added it as a prank back in the day, and randomly Pringles said that was his name saying that’s what it must have been according to their own research. That random edit made a national food company effectually retcon themselves.
Wikipedia is in general, pretty good for what it is. Not perfect, but overall accurate.