Counterpoint: Wikipedia, by it's nature, strives to coalesce around a single narrative (there may be a lot of wrangling behind the scenes, but that's what they

Counterpoint: Wikipedia, by it's nature, strives to coalesce around a single narrative (there may be a lot of wrangling behind the scenes, but that's what they present). That puts them in line with much of the mainstream media, who have gotten several key events of the war fantastically wrong. Twitter, by contrast, presents multiple points of view. This is a feature, not a bug. If you want to follow accounts cheering on Hamas, well, you're an animal, but go for it. If you want to follow IDF or particular sources you trust, you're probably much better informed than anyone reading, e.g., the New York Times. Blue check marks have nothing to do with it. This reads like the last gasp of a gatekeeper trying to remain relevant in an increasingly distributed world.