From what i've seen so far on here, i think you're hovering around the same space i'm at. I think theres a lack of diversity of sources.

AZ seems always at risk of becoming a Guardian and ABC news reposting site. It makes sense, they are the so readily accessible and very high quality sources in their own rights.

But i don't think its great for AZ as a value proposition for continuing and new users. It also means that conversation might become stalted and defined by the Guardian and ABC outlooks, again not bad, but diversity of voices is useful.

I'm not talking Murdoch propaganda trash btw, links need to have a certain connection to reality.

I've thought for a while now, the best way to do this would be for a cadre of the continuing posting users adopting a diversity of sources mantra with their posting. It takes more work, but the result could deliver a more valuable proposition to the rest of the users looking through the communities.

I act on this as a personal mantra with my posting in c/AussieEnviro, and c/Perth/Western Australia, i need to get myself organised to do the same with c/rage.

The glaring problem is, of course, the diversity of sources doesn't result in high upvote numbers, so its a principle that seems to lack user engagement, (with some exceptions). I don't know why that is, maybe a confort thing of knnowing ABC and Guardian, or maybe too many articles from different sources are a bit too obscure for the mainstream AZ user. I don't know.