It's entirely acceptable to raise the question of the quality of the source if it's unknown. I, for one, know nothing about the World Socialist Web Site, or whether they have a habit of pushing stories with glaring omissions, unfounded additions or in the worst case, plain falsehoods. I do know to some degree about a fair number of larger news organizations, and while none are perfect, I trust a number of them to not completely violate the faith many people have in them (as that would be counterproductive to their business).

If the WSWS is respectable, presumably it will have a history of handling stories responsibly, and someone here can vouch for that. If nobody here knows, then it is useful to note that so people can investigate before assuming truth.

I'd vouch for them, they've been around for a really long time and while I don't subscribe to their politics I've never come across blatant lies or propaganda* in >10 years of occasional reading, which is more than I can say for a lot of agenda-driven news sites.

By propaganda I mean stories whose only purpose is engender attitudinal change, eg gleefully reporting on sex scandals but only if they happen to your political enemies. Obviously they have a pretty orthodox Marxist/communist agenda but since they're completely open about that I don't consider it manipulative of their readership.

You're essentially doubling-down on speaking from ignorance.

> You're essentially doubling-down on speaking from ignorance.

For me to double down, I would have to have been the author of the original comment, or even agreed with the manner it was delivered, no? I can't help but find your response ironic.