Well, what you "acknowledge to be verified/true" is up to you, not up to some "authority" or "fact checker". It is always up to you, the individual.
Not exactly, yes and no, if you like.
On the one hand, yes, an individual is responsible, especially if they end up taking action(s) as a result.
But on the other. A particular individual, may well want to spend most of their time doing other things. Work, Hobbies, Entertainment, TV/Movies, Dealing with Family, meals, hygiene and many other things.
Giving themselves, little time to keep up with the current days news. They may even want to sleep or take toilet breaks, sometimes!
A particular individual, may well be highly intelligent, and extremely skilled/knowledgeable in some areas. Perhaps they are a top Doctor. But that wouldn't make them an expert on many other subject areas. For example, could the top Doctor, take 100% control of a troubled airline flight, with one engine burnt out, the other engine, over-heated, smoldering and showing various alert alarms. 45 injured passengers, of 419 (including crew), because of the on-board fire, smoke and other reasons.
Could the top Doctor, drive a formula 1 racing car, to win against several former world champion drivers ?
Maybe the top Doctor could write the firmware, design the PCB, for a complicated electronics project ?
If not, it would be tricky for them to analyse some news items, themselves. Which is why, quality/reliable/trustworthy/truthful news sources, are especially important, for busy people and/or people who are NOT all that interested in the news, anyway.
TL;DR
Some have limited time and interest in the news. But they want a quick, minute or two, of the days headlines/summary of what has occurred.
Having the right to decide what to believe and think, is the primary human right
It is, but properly analyzing it (as I stated, earlier in this post), may exceed the skills, knowledge base and time resources, of the individual, who just wants to see the news, or a quick summary of it.
Whenever you use Wikipedia as a source, I recommend also looking at the history of the page
Wikipedia tends to be (sometimes), merely
reasonable as a source (but in many cases, very useful and accurate), rather than outstanding, highly accurate, and other measures of high end quality sources. In some cases, it can be plain wrong, or even edited by people with strong biases, and the wrong reasons, for updated/changing the article(s). Which leads nicely on to my next section:
Same with the Russian media. I don't want to know what they say because I think they are truthful, I want to know what they say because that describes what the powers that be there want to say
Newspapers/TV-channels, and similar news sources. Should be basically truthful and accurate. When, on a very regular basis, they are churning out complete lies. Basically it is part of a huge disinformation and war propaganda machine, for the other side (enemy).
So I can well understand it being banned, in much/all of the West.
You are right, in saying that some (probably rare) individuals. Can digest the information, and generate useful information, by reverse engineering the lying process or something. But, the channel(s)/newspapers/etc, from a practical point of view. Need to either be banned completely or allowed.
So, in the current circumstances (i.e. war(s) have started up), it makes lots of sense to clamp down on such arguably bad information sources.