I am fairly certain the "Internet Party" of new zealand would be able to maintain its own wikipedia page and point out sources that reported on Suzie Dawson's harassment without TPTB preventing it.

On most matters wikipedia is informative, I have heard that the editing process is just quite difficult as there are so many rules.

On matters of israel/palestine or Monsanto or Tianmnen square, I know there is disinformation and they prevent the truth from being known.

A news source, a politician, a journalist, should make it a priority to maintain their own wikipedia page.

Here are for example two well maintained pages on two sources I find credible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthdig

You will notice all of the sites listed as being part of the troll nest simply have no corroborating backstory. And of course, then shills come, as sit666 did, to claim that the entire hole in my argument here is that I trust wikipedia, at all. But I have learned to trust it more than I trust sit666, or you for that matter.

If you are a reputable new source or a politician or a journalist, there will be a network of creditility that can be found. If a popup news site has no corroborating back story, or one fraught with strangeness like mintpressnews, then the site is not real journalism and shouldn't be trusted.

A core competency of anyone who claims to be a journalist is understanding what credibilty is and providing it to those who read their content.

Someone is paying a lot of money to cut corners and make people trust content because of whalevotes on steemit, and I'm not going to be part of it.

I have had only bad experiences with all of the people mentioned here, and it would be obvious to anyone who read the article or researched it what they are doing.

I don't know how you can read this post and then at the end say 'i don't know what to make of suzie', please read the article before you comment so you can address the arguments presented, otherwise silence would be more appropriate, thanks.