> Seriously quoting RT (or Sputnik) in a serious article is giving them legitimacy they don't deserve. If these are some of the only outlets picking up this st

> Seriously quoting RT (or Sputnik) in a serious article is giving them legitimacy they don't deserve. If these are some of the only outlets picking up this story, they deserve whatever legitimacy they get from that. I'm sure the authors of that website would prefer to quote the NYT and the WSJ, but these haven't picked up the story. More fundamentally, outlets that are seen as reliable sources by wikipedia are probably biased towards it. If you look for example at articles about wikipedia from the NYT[1] and the WSJ[2], even if they are about problems with it, the framing is always that wikipedia is working on a problem. So critical reporting about wikipedia is likely to come from outlets seen as "illegitimate". To demand to ignore those is to demand to ignore most critical reporting about it. > If Philip Cross genuinely is an individual That's the key part here. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awsj.com+wikipedia&oq=site%3Awsj.com+wikipedia&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.4432j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awsj.com+wikipedia&oq=... [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+wikipedia&oq=site%3Anytimes.com+wikipedia&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.5024j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+wikipedia...