Edit: Oh god I messed up the title. It should be "Meta: Issue with /u/Samuel_Gompers' causes of WW1 post being in the 'good history' wiki section"

The post in question. Every other post in the "good history" wiki section deals with topics that are not a contested issue. Things like slavery causing the Civil War, the Holocaust happening, and Jesus existing are not controversial topics with respected scholars: only extremists with an agenda dispute these facts. However, saying that "the onus lies completely on Germany" for World War 1 is still an intensely debated topic. The viewpoint that Samuel_Gompers has is (I believe) the Fischer Thesis, which postulates that German expansionism was entirely to blame for WW1. This has been the dominant theory regarding the war, but even at its inception it received criticism, and it was produced in the aftermath of World War 2, a time when the viewpoint that there was something innately aggressive about the German people was in vogue. There has been plenty of excellent scholarship that has disputed this claim (most recently Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914, which I would highly recommend). Since the topic is not black and white I don't believe that the post deserves a place in the "good history" wiki, which I view as a place to post definitive debunking of crackpots (if it were just a place for good history there would be many many more posts).

This next part is much more subjective, and is simply my disagreements with the post. I'm also going to look at the more extensive post that he linked in his own post.

My biggest gripe was with the paragraph regarding the Moroccan Crises. Here, the information given is almost deliberately misleading at times.

The first incident of note in the 20th Century was the 1st Moroccan Crisis. In 1905, the Kaiser went to Tangier, Morocco, which was supposedly under French influence, and gave a speech supporting independence. This was a test of the Entente Cordiale.

This isn't strictly untrue, but it completely ignores the context of the crisis in order to paint the Germans in a bad light. Morocco was an independent country, and was viewed as a sort of China in North Africa: everyone had trade interests there, and no one except the French wanted it to lose its independence, because their interests would suffer. The text of the Entente Cordiale actually confirmed that Morocco was an independent nation. The Treaty of Algeciras that resulted from the crisis was a diplomatic failure for Germany, but otherwise confirmed that Morocco was independent, which suited German financial interests.

In 1911, Germany sent a gunboat to Agadir (also in Morocco). This enraged France and David Lloyd George, then Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain, gave his famous Mansion House Speech as an ultimatum in support of France

This is the most egregious misrepresentation in the post. There is absolutely no context given, and if read in this light it looks like a textbook case of German aggression. However, if one examines the context the actual issue is much more nuanced. In 1911 a series of revolts started against the Moroccan Sultan, and the French, in direct violation of the treaty they signed 6 years earlier unilaterally move in to prop up the Sultan. The Germans, seeing that they can't really do much unless they want to start a war over Morocco (they don't), enter into talks with the French for colonial compensation elsewhere. The French agree to this because they are very clearly in the wrong (plus, the Germans actually had a higher economic stake in Morocco), but the negotiations drag on due to overzealous German demands. The gunboat Panther is sent to Agadir to basically up the tension in the crisis and give the Germans a better position to negotiate (its alleged pretext was to protect German citizens, but the only German in Agadir was specifically sent by the government, and he didn't arrive until the Panther had already arrived). The context given in the OP makes it seem like the Germans did it just because it would piss of the French and British, which was not the case.

Germany supported Austria-Hungary during the Bosnian Annexation Crisis of 1908

And? The Bonsian Annexation Crisis came about when Russia and Austria-Hungary agreed to support each other in initiatives in the Balkans: Austria would be allowed to annex Bosnia-Herzegovinia (which it had occupied since the 1878 Treaty of Berlin), while Russia would have Bulgaria to fully declare its independence, and have the Austrians not oppose a Russian bid to control the Straits of Constantinople. Both sides were violated the 1878 Treaty, but after the British blocked the Russian bid for the Straits the Russians turned around and made a big deal out of the Bosnian annexation and conveniently forgot about their prior agreement with Austria. Germany supported its ally in this matter, while France supported Russia, its ally. However, this German support is somehow portrayed as agressive in Samuel_Gompers' post.

the view of Sidney B. Fay who is now accepted by academic historians to have been a revisionist

So? Just because he is a revisionist does not mean that his view can be dismissed, or that he is completely wrong. He's not a crackpot who is misinterpreting evidence to fit a bias, he is simply reexamining the existing narrative, which has its own pro-entente bias.