Three things.
First, it's a resource for writing in that it acts as a pointer for questions of: how did someone else do this scene, character, technique, etc.
Second, I've found it iffy on example history. By nature the site user base tends toward the younger crew. They're good at citing recent examples (and that's useful); and, a little surprisingly, they do good with ancient citations. They tend to miss things that were done in teleplays, things in the thirties, forties, and fifties, etc. They do catch things done in the sixties and later, I suspect due to syndication rebroadcasts.
Third, the scope of the site's example citations are both a boon and a curse. In a more professional or higher educational setting the number of troupes listed would be about a quarter of what is on the site. The examples listed for study would be more limited, more focused, and of much higher relevance.
As far as the site's participation in, or acknowledgement of the Internet cultural wars it just shows them running out of useful ideas to pursue.
I'm with:
>>7749
as I visited fairly early on in the site's history and the novelty wore off. Now it's just a good resource for pointing to primary source materials for study.