I’m not really following here tbh. Articles might be wrong and so…. something? Sure simply pasting any old link isn’t inherently proving anything. One would have to assume the link is being provided because the poster thought the content of the article was good.

Chances are, most people wouldn't know about anything outside of their small circle if it weren't for articles. The article is just a beginning. The article brings your attention to something. Then it's your responsibility to research what it says and determine how true it is. I prefer to think of an article as a hypothesis. Usually there are several facts that lead to a hypothesis. The job is then to determine the validity of the facts and see if the hypothesis holds up to further scutiny.

I guess it depends on indeed who the source it.

If it's data, and you have an official source, there isn't really much to debate.

Got an alternative asides randos on the internet? lulz

They confuse witness testimony with cross examination and examination of evidence (the three elements of truth seeking).

Anyone who gives a perspective must, by their nature and role, be questionable.

Shiteater.com is safe-ish. It's a domain that has been parked with an advertising platform.

What trusted sites? If anything, I think people trust well known web sites too much to be correct and unbiased.