Thanks for the link. People sometimes do things in a political environment that others disagree with and criticise heavily. This, though, is nothing to do with science or the facts of the case presented to the courts. The merits or failings of the evidence and case that have been presented will be examined, I imagine, without reference to her political beliefs.
One person's misinformation is another person's accurate information and Wikipedia is very well known for spreading misinformation itself. Even one of the founders, Larry Sanger, has gone on a kind of crusade to make people aware of how corrupted the editing of Wikipedia has become. There are large armies of well paid agents from various governments and other organisations who have no other role than editing Wikipedia in order to push their own agenda and narrative.
In a world where an information war is ongoing, it is important and necessary to remain as unbiased as possible and to learn to dissect claims and evidence from beliefs and agendas/biases.
While you may personally think that I have an agenda or bias, the reality is that I wouldn't be making any of these posts on COVID and whistleblowers if there wasn't such a concerted effort to censor scientific experts who dissent from the narrative that is being pushed so heavily.