It considers CIA propaganda fronts legitimate sources and in general questionable sources, like random articles from businessinsider dot com, are accepted as citations when the article is about something considers ”bad”. It's also known that the US government is involved in heavy astroturfing. We don't call it NATOpedia for nothing.
It considers CIA propaganda fronts legitimate sources and in general questionable sources, like random articles from businessinsider dot com, are accepted as citations when the article is about something
considers ”bad”. It's also known that the US government is involved in heavy astroturfing. We don't call it NATOpedia for nothing.