I was ready to believe it, but this is a really poor argument for the thesis. First problem, it's written by some pastiche of a blue-check obsessed journalist.

I was ready to believe it, but this is a really poor argument for the thesis. First problem, it's written by some pastiche of a blue-check obsessed journalist. The article goes on and on about how some accounts are posting misinformation despite having blue checks. Blue check was never a badge of accuracy, so why are Slate pretending it was? It was at best just a form of ID verification. Then they name one account that supposedly was blue check whilst claiming affiliation with Al Jazeera, but don't link directly to it (of course). Instead the link goes to Reuters which just repeats the claim and also doesn't link to it. Yet after digging and looking at screenshots of this account posted at the time Al Jazeera complained, no blue check is to be seen anywhere. Is Slate itself now spreading misinformation? Second problem, no evidence is provided for the claim in the headline. After some undisguised Musk hatred that doesn't even pretend to be neutral journalism, Harrison spends numerous paragraphs explaining how Wikipedia works, presumably for people who spent the last 20 years in a coma. We are told that Wikipedia is clearly superior because anyone can edit it, except at the moment when they can't but only "the self-proclaimed free speech absolutists on X" care about that, and because you have to cite reliable sources like newspapers. That "age old rule" has protected Wikipedia from citing cell-phone sourced misinformation. But this makes no sense because it was only days ago that major newspapers were having to apologize for having blindly repeated misinformation about the Gaza conflict. The rest of the article is about wiki-fights over choices of words: is it a war between Israel and Hamas or Israel and Gaza. Were the men who attacked the music festival terrorists or militants, and was that a massacre or something else? We are told "the impact of Wikipedia’s description ... cannot be overstated" because "journalists often turn to its pages for guidance". This article offers no specific evidence that Wikipedia is doing a better job of covering the war. It's not even made clear what it means for such services to "cover" something. This is really just another complaint by a journalist that Twitter doesn't give them special blue check privileges anymore, whereas Wikipedia still does.