I've been around the internet long enough to spot poorly researched, ghost written "content" and this is bottom tier.
If something sounds like it might possibly be true, and important enough to matter, but comes from a source that is either unproven or proven unreliable, then it's reasonable to either ignore it o matter what it says, or look into the topic elsewhere until you have found multiple reliable sources, and it doesn't matter if in the end the data happens to be the same.
The initial data, accurate or not, was utterly valueless random data. Random includes everything, both true and untrue and everything in between. The true bits have no value because you don't know they're true until after you determined it some other way.
When a source repeatedly turns out to only deliver info that later checks out, THEN you can start granting it some amount of benefit of the doubt. Not before, and not at all when a source is not only unproven but already has a haphazard history.
Source always matters, period.
FWIW, the Wikipedia article about Ridgid includes more information and is also much more concise.