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.

When it comes to heated political topics it is not very impartial, due to the opinions of the powerusers.

I agree that for a lot of stuff it is very useful, but still.