Now, once you realise that 'Libertarian' is actually linked to Left-libertarianism (T-H-L), that doesn't seem an entirely implausible claim to make. But what was the source for this? It turned out to be The Hollowverse link:Politically, Atkinson is a Libertarian.
Two problems then. Firstly, the source says that 'Atkinson might be designated a libertarian' (doesn't say what sort). Which isn't a statement that he is one. And secondly, who or what is The Hollowverse, and why should anyone take their word for anything? Nothing on the webpage remotely suggests that it is any sort of 'reliable source' per Wikipedia's WP:RS (T-H-L) policy, and the author of the Atkinson piece seems to be some random dude with no more identification than a broken link to a Facebook page.Atkinson might be designated a libertarian. His opinions on free speech have put him at odds with Britain’s politically correct political party, the Labour Party, on more than one occasion.
If this was just an isolated example, I'd probably be inclined to ignore it. It appears not to be though. The Hollowverse has been cited in 26 different biographies. link Adam Sandler (T-H-L) cites The Hollowverse for a statement that 'Sandler is a supporter of the Republican Party'. Dakota Fanning (T-H-L) cites The Hollowverse for a statement that she was ' brought up Southern Baptist'. Kevin Costner (T-H-L) cites The Hollowverse for 'Costner was raised in a Baptist home and sang in the church choir. When commenting on his religious beliefs, he says that he has faith in God, but it is tested'. Ben Stiller (T-H-L) cites The Hollowverse for ' Stiller is actively involved in support of animal rights'. And so on...
At this point, I started to notice a pattern. The citations weren't just to The Hollowverse, four of the five citations I'd looked at so far were to articles written by the same random unidentifiable dude - one Tom Kershaw, whoever he is. Now, all of what Kershaw says may possibly be true. In some cases at least, he actually cites sources. Which leads me to ask why Wikipedia is citing random-Facebook-guy, rather than the sources he bases his claims on. Has Kershaw (whoever he is) been engaging in some Frank-Lovece-style self promotion on Wikipedia? Or has The Hollowverse been engaged in link-spamming? Or are Wikipedians that stupid that they can't follow an unreliable source to a reliable one? Whatever it is, this doesn't look good. Biographies need better sourcing than that. And better contributors, if they can't recognise a crap source when they see one. Or maybe they should stop writing 'biographies' cobbled together from web-scrapings entirely. If the only source you have for someone's religion or politics is The Hollowverse, it doesn't belong in a biography at all.