"editorial voice". Such a lovely turn-of-phrase, no?
The gentleman in question stood up and made these claims, and we've reported that he did so. That doesn't trump scientific study any more than your moronic little graph helped you kill off Wikinews the last time you decided to try taking pot-shots at "the project you're incapable of contributing to".
Seriously? This is the best you can come up with? A warped reading of phrasing, and Grand Canyon leap of deduction, to allege Wikinews is unreliable?
Before you get your frilly panties in a Gordian Knot at any follow up that reads your character back to you, read the bit at the top of this page.
By your own capricious standards, your 'mouthpiece' — commonly known as The Signpost — should've been shut down years ago. Then you'd be where you belong, along with your wiki-hating cronies who "don't do content", sitting on Wikipedia Review being irrelevant; it's not as-if you're particularly relevant anywhere else.