These are the same policies Wikipedia has had for over a decade, with only relatively minor changes. Are you saying they're being interpreted differently? Could you give an example?
Anyone suggesting Bellingcat is more reliable than Wikileaks is regurgitating establishment talking points.
FWIW I don’t think it’s an MI6 backed site
at least US intelligence agencies used to hide behind private news sources until they started hiring the intelligence people outright.
They're a state backed propaganda machine pushing the state's narrative, but resisting any other narrative when the current opposition in power because they've been entirely staffed by activist journalists.
The BBC works directly with the UK Foreign Office to push propaganda to destabilise other countries: https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of...
> with only relatively minor changes
Relatively minor changes have huge effect on the content of articles. The linked article also addresses how Wikipedia has banned conservative sources from Wikipedia including Fox News, the Daily Mail, and the New York Post. "In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources—and sources friendly to globalist progressivism—are permitted."
Every claim in a Wikipedia article must be accompanied with a source. Claims that are only covered by conservative media and not covered at all by mainstream (liberal) media, cannot be referenced as a source in a Wikipedia article. This leads to conservative viewpoints being removed from articles. Which directly causes articles to become biased towards mainstream viewpoints.
That checks out.