While some trolls might believe that truth is factionally defined, and others might believe that only gnawing actually determines which are the undisputed facts, probably it is all much more complex than that. The Consumerium:philosophy focuses on buying criteria which is not really the same as "finding the truth" about anything. Approximations, rumours even, can be fine substitutes if they come from trusted sources - there are many terms in the glossary that deal with gradations of truth and trust.
Knowledge and its relation to Research Wiki and the Consumerium buying signal, i.e. Publish Wiki is a much more cogent concern - see philosophy for some of the most basic disputes in representing "facts".
Basically, the presentation of the Consumerium buying signal, like any such signal, is only an approximation of "the truth". If it were universally "true" than any defiance of it, say, to buy a red light item, might be considered to defy some ethic or moral order. This is over-simplified. In fact, people make all kinds of choices to pay a price premium or not, to trust signals of various kinds, and to believe trolls or not. There is no single view of all of the issues or tradeoffs that are involved in the buying criteria of a person - the term moral purchasing itself admits that it is as personal as any other morality.
With some information about what people actually did, i.e. buying decision information that could be matched against their avowed buying criteria, we would probably have something closer to the truth about their concerns - but it's not clear that even friendly retail could get us this information.