[Ukv]

> (of course Wikipedia is probably "manufactured narrative", right?).

Wikipedia aims to represent the current consensus of reputable sources ("Verifiability, not truth"). I think that's often pragmatic - but it does make it a poor ground truth for specifically the case where someone is claiming that an outlet going against the grain was correct.

Seems to be somewhat alleviated here by reputable outlets having since reconsidered the story a couple years later. The Wikipedia article now mentions the authentication of the emails for instance, instead of only the fabrication/manipulation theory. You could always verify by yourself with the provided DKIM signatures, and that was discussed on the talk page at the time, but couldn't be added to the article because it was considered original research and only reported in security blogs/GitHub repos/unreputable sources.

There are still many material claims in the Wikipedia article which, while maybe verifiable, are highly misleading or untrue (at least, to my understanding of events). The claim that "the shop had no contact information for its owner" seems fairly directly contradicted by documents presented in the initial NYP article, for instance[0].

[0]: https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Comput...