I used to give to Wikipedia but stopped when I discovered that they were claiming that The Grayzone / Moderate Rebels were a special fourth category of untrusted in their three tier system of source ranking. I still like and use it, but that smacks of an especially sneaky variant of censorship. The Grayzone / Moderate Rebels definitely take an independent, outsider slant on important stories with an upfront, stated i…
AIUI the decision was made via standard procedure (a Request for Comments sub-page), and it was the consensus of the editors (that is, the ominous "they" in your comment) that it is unreliable as a source.
Now there is an obvious need for quality control of accepted sources in a project like Wikipedia, the process was transparent, and its conclusion is up for debate (hence being conducted through a Request for Comments). What would you propose instead?