Hey @[email protected] and @[email protected]: When I was sending that code to parse Wikipedia's sources list for a possibly better fact-checking scanner, one of the notable things that I found out is that Wikipedia regards Newsweek as unreliable. It used to be reliable, as most media outlets are, but they say that since an ownership change a few years ago, they're not. I have to say, now that I've been paying attention, their stories definitely seem to have very little to do with factual information, and quite a lot to do with amassing clicks or communicating a particular partisan message which isn't true, or both. Case in point, this explicitly propaganda-framed article.
I don't see a community rule which is specifically against unreliable articles, as measured by any source, but how would you feel about that? In conjunction with a more robust standard for what is and isn't reliable? In my judgement, this link is clearly in violation of "Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed."
Also, why is this guy still allowed to post? It seems weird. He's so openly spamming the community with unwelcome trolling and propaganda that it seems strange that he's still being welcomed with open arms. In what way is this improving the community to have him putting up a steady flow of posts, and having every one met with universal downvotes and jeering?
It's a broader question than this one post, but this post is a good example in reference to both questions.