>>407128The RfC's where the deprecation of these sources was decided upon are linked on that page. You can click them and see why they were deprecated. These outlets have a reputation for spreading misinformation.
That said, the treatment of U.S. government outlets, as per
>>407117 (an outlet whose actual Wikipedia page states at the lead section that it is historically a C.I.A. project) does constitute a double-standard for a decent amount of editors. "XYZ is owned by the Chinese government" is for many a valid reason to deprecate or mark unreliable, but "XYZ is owned by the American government" is not. As someone knowledgable with the background of these Wiki decisions, this is a valid criticism of the community.
But don't pretend like RT, Sputnik, CGTN or the Grayzone have no issues in their relationship to the truth, if you're not going to bother reading the RfC's where a decision to deprecate was made.
Grayzone has a history of stretching the truth demonstrably to try and force a point, for example, and reads as an opinion blog at best. FAIR.org is what a Grayzone with better integrity would look like.
RT has all the journalistic integrity of the Daily Mail (and indeed, a similar style of reporting), a right-wing source which was I think the first Wikipedia ever deprecated.
I could go on. But really just read the RfC's if you're curious. Like I said, the community deserves a lot more critique than it is currently getting on this front, but it has to be from an honest standpoint.