zlacker

>>techno+(OP)
Grayzone is an extremely unreliable source which frequently publishes false stories with an anti-US bent [1][2]. The past discussion [3] has a WSJ link which should be preferred over this.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone

[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzon...

[3]: >>44268547

>>rafram+u7
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.

>>whatsh+U7
Dishonest 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)

>>stickf+ma
It 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/Not...

>>jjmarr+yc
It'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".