I can't see it on Wikipedia. Do you have a link?

While I think it's complete bogus, I will respect the author's demand of staying pseudonymous and not post a direct link. But check the history of a certain article if you really need to look it up.

Going through the history of an article counts as digging, and saying that's "on Wikipedia" is pretty misleading.

By your definition getting anything from a git repository that's not the main branch is digging and saying "it's on git" to a specific branch or tag would be misleading.

The article history of any article is literally available with just one click on Wikipedia. Well, make that two to show a specific version. Getting to the article itself takes more clicks and key presses than that ... so reading Wikipedia at all counts as digging already?

Surely you know that's a strawman. You can do better.

Isn't "digging" exactly what a good journalist is supposed to do?

Journalism is not digging for the sake of digging, it's digging for the sake of a story. Revealing Scott's name is not for the sake of a story, it's for the sake of enabling harassment.