I agree with that. I think it's right to be skeptical of the article, but also right to be skeptical of alternate links if they're not better sourced themselves. I understand the merit of the heuristic approach, but it shouldn't be conflated with the method of logically examining the reference material.

Unfortunately, the downvotes show that HN doesn't appreciate this distinction, at least not when it's said to a popular member of the community. :)