Per his website

> We did the research for you and compiled a database

Given that I am relying on this person and his editorial decisions, this sort of thing is very relevant to me. It might affect what data he chooses to include or exclude, and what he is willing to treat as reliable or unreliable. Needless to say, his usage of Wikispooks as a source does not inspire confidence.

Just curious: Do you rely on mainstream news and their editorial decisions?

This[0] is Wikispooks' page on the Holocaust. Wikispooks is one of this guy's 7 listed sources. However much I may distrust 'mainstream news', I automatically trust the whole lot of them more than I trust Holocaust deniers.

[0]https://wikispooks.com/wiki/The_Holocaust

Yes. He posts conspiracy theories and says he uses Wikispooks as a source of his data. He simply is not a trustworthy actor.

If he relied on CNN and similar outlets would you be just as concerned for the truth?

There is a difference between being skeptical and being conspiratorial in thinking. We can be critical of mainstream media in its accuracy but not have to immediately trust the next person to come along. Especially when they utilize sources with even more extreme biases and inaccurate information.

CNN being a poor source doesn’t make this browser extension a better one. In fact CNN being bad has zero bearing on the quality and accuracy of this source or Wikipedia or Bellingcat or anything else that doesn’t use the same methodology and primary sources as CNN.

> Does that have any bearing on facts revealed by this extension?

Yes. If the information is derived from questionable sources, that makes the information itself questionable.

> Also truly ask yourself: Would you post this exact comment had he been (seemingly) of a different political alignment?

Probably not, but that's fine; you're here.