>I posted dude defending himself on Tim Pool's platform
There is half your problem. Tim Pool generally is not a valid journalistic source. He regularly fails to fact check, citing inflammatory rhetoric in the process for a double whammy of bad journalism.
In fact, in terms of avoiding misinformation, Pool is as inadequate for the task as citing Ben Shapiro or Alex Jones.
While I agree that Wikimedia should not be funding non-Wikipedia activities with funds raised through Wikipedia, that does not mean hit pieces like this get to start being sloppy without recourse.
I said "as" inadequate. The constructed narratives and data cherrypicking of fringe entertainers like Shapiro and Jones are more frequent and more damaging than the selective reporting and factual confusions of mainstream media. The financial motivations are also slightly different as legacy media is impacted by different billionaire spending vs political infotainers.
Or more plainly: the point was not to say "aha, see, Pool and Shapiro and Jones are the ONLY sources of misinformation, and by omitting, say, the BBC, I think its fine to watch them because they are definitely trustworthy*" - I was saying the three mentioned infotainers are all on the same level. That's an important distinction.
There is half your problem. Tim Pool generally is not a valid journalistic source. He regularly fails to fact check, citing inflammatory rhetoric in the process for a double whammy of bad journalism.
In fact, in terms of avoiding misinformation, Pool is as inadequate for the task as citing Ben Shapiro or Alex Jones.
While I agree that Wikimedia should not be funding non-Wikipedia activities with funds raised through Wikipedia, that does not mean hit pieces like this get to start being sloppy without recourse.