I experience a moment of shock, accompanied by what seemed to be a mild itching or burning sensation, as I realized that I was strongly in agreement with what Jimbo had posted here. He was registering his approval of Scott MacDonald's essay, "Wikipedia:Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources)", or WP:OTTO.
Of course, Jimbo's endorsement is meaningless, given his role as the Grand Enabler for SlimVirgin, back in the days when she was first re-writing Wikipedia policy with the creation of WP:V. One of the seminal moments in Wikipedia history was Slim's creation of the maxim, "Verifiability, not Truth."
So now Scott has ably demonstrated the outcome of the policy: it is easy to lie at Wikipedia, provided that you use Reliable Sources™. That pretty much defines the rules of the game: collect more newspaper clippings than your opponent, and you are free to lie about your target of choice.
There are things that could be done to at least mitigate this situation. For example, WP:BLPGOSSIP says, "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." In practice, this is widely ignored. If some teeth were added, to the effect that "allegations which are cited to anonymous sources in news media stories may be summarily removed," that would be a step in the right direction. Watch the POV warriors howl if someone attempts to make that policy, though. SlimVirgin has already howled in advance: "The BLP policy was never intended to mean that we can't repeat what multiple reliable sources say about such figures, and indeed it's that sort of extreme interpretation that has caused the policy to acquire a bad reputation with some editors."
However, if Wikipedia is ever going to become something like an encyclopedia, instead of "the biggest and most prolific defamation machine that the world has ever known," something must be done to check the unrestricted use of news media as sources, especially for BLPs.