Btw Wikipedia’s first few sentences on Breitbart are not inspiring
> Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and much of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and traditional conservatives alike.[10] The site has published a number of conspiracy theories[11][12] and intentionally misleading stories.[13][14]
This is the association fallacy, which is, unfortunately, how most people determine what to believe these days.
An absurd example of this fallacy would be, Wikipedia, which you cite, has articles that indicate tobacco smoking may cause disease. The nazis were also anti-smoking[1]. Therefore Wikipedia is Nazi propaganda and you should not trust anything on there.
It is not the association fallacy; the role of a news site is to provide news, which includes fact-checking the work of their "journalists."
If Breitbart pulled a Fox News and argued in court that their goal was to entertain and not inform, then you have a point! But until then, you have a terrible misunderstanding of journalistic integrity and what it means for a publisher to attach their name to a journalist's work.
https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/google-news-algorithm.php
Btw Wikipedia’s first few sentences on Breitbart are not inspiring
> Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and much of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and traditional conservatives alike.[10] The site has published a number of conspiracy theories[11][12] and intentionally misleading stories.[13][14]