Could be. Ive had some of my students take Wikipedia crap apart in a position paper about a "pet" theory that some researcher in genetics had spread all over several years ago. Wiki and several others dont really have resources to make sure that what they put out there is actually defensible. SO they rely on volunteer peers. many of whom are either retired or are students.
If you are commenting on how several news sources (like CNN) make available space to outsiders to publish stuff as news or truth, they take a risk . Like bewildered s crap about the 300 MYa skulls, of humans. This stuff was given the dust off by real scientists almost 10 years ago when it was semi hot.
The Creationists jumped on the bandwagon cause here was some evidence they sought.
Then the paleontology community did an expetnsive excavation at the "fossil" location and found a PLUMB brand mining pick embedded along with the fossil bones and the skull. It was a miner form the 1800's who got incorporated into the coal measures and was chemically altered by the acidic conditions.
The Creationists disappeared as quickly as they showed up.
I poften see some dubious stuff in blogs and other sources. There are no standards on the internet (perhaps there should be but whos gonna pay for it?)