4 ms·
It'd probably be a stronger case if you could point out an inaccuracy in the article. In a sense it's implicit agreement to only criticise the identity of the s
by whatshisface 1y ago
It'd probably be a stronger case if you could point out an inaccuracy in the article. In a sense it's implicit agreement to only criticise the identity of the source.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- stickfigure 1y agoDishonest sources can generate bullshit faster than honest people can debunk it. At some point you are obliged to dismiss consistently unreliable sources. In fact, Wikipedia has already done this: "The English Wikipedia formally deprecated the use of The Grayzone as a source for facts in its articles in March 2020, citing issues with the website's factual reliability." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone)
- monkeywork 1y agoOk so in this case what is not correct
- jjmarr 1y agoIt was deprecated because it was the personal blog of Max Blumenthal more than any specific false stories. The Wikipedia discussion is public: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#RfC:_Grayzone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...
- stickfigure 1y agoIt's literally right there in the heading of that RfC you linked: Taking into account the strength of the arguments and those who did not distinguish between those options, there is a rough consensus for Option 4: "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated".
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]