:I disagree. I am assuming that you are referring to WP:RS#Wikipedia:Rs#Usage_by_other_sources: 
 ::How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them. 
 :Just because something is repeated over and over on the internet does not make it true. The section referenced in WP:RS is discussing trying to determine the reliability of the source, not the content. For example, wikipedia and IMDB are widely cited but neither are reliable sources because there are widespread doubts against its reliability. There may be a BLP violation because there is no conclusive proof that anitablondxxx is self-published especially when adult webmasters routinely own and control the website of a subject even when it's purpoted to be official.