Wikipedia? Of course not.You're not really going to try to defend a website which specialises in conspiracy theories...are you?
But seriously - did you not read my post about how any alternative opinion is attacked in the very same way that you are now doing. And how people are led to attack them by amateur fact checking sites that themselves are attacked by other fact checking sites. Try fact checking without resorting to such inept fact checking sources and then follow up the sources provided by the attacked piece without the poisoned well provided before you read their input.
But then again. If you look back I didn't either endorse or decry the original piece. I just published it. You leapt to the assumption that I was endorsing it and then that I was defending it because I had called out an attempt to use wiki as a means to discredit it. Two entirely different things.
But as usual in here the first reaction is always to spend time and research into the origin of anything that inflames their cognitive dissonance so that they don't need to spend any time actually addressing the points raised.