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 🤦

  • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    They think that because it claims to be accurate, therefore it is. No fact checking of themselves, no matter how it is completely wrong and treats liberal media as far left, and fox news are center right, it’s the godsend for the mods to remove anything they dislike.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 minutes ago

      It’s in the Wikipedia sourcing guidelines: Absolutely under no circumstances should you reference Wikipedia as a reliable source, it needs to be something external, ideally something with some expertise, because if you never check yourself from outside, you can believe literally anything because you believe it just because at some point it made its way into your little collection, and self-referential loops are bad.

      Meanwhile MBFC’s rating for MBFC: 10/10 bro