Wikipedia regardless of its faults is still going to be one of the most if not the most revelant page for a wide majority of searches, be it people for birthdays, organization ownership, etc. Sure, there are very glaring issues with the content moderation on wikipedia, but that doesn't change the relevance of the data it does have in relation to what people search. Mind you this is a browser that openly advertises itself as producing similar results to Google. Until there is a viable alternative to Wikipedia that isn't so controlled it is tough to produce a better result than Wikipedia for a lot of search topics. Plus, what do you want them to do? Censor Wikipedia on their searches entirely? The whole reason people are switching search engines is because of censorship and privacy concerns, quite a slippery slope to start censoring sources we don't like, no?

Also, within the context of this post which I was replying to, this person has framed his post as if it was people from Brave themselves that went out of their way to label gateway pundit as fake news, when the reality of the situation is he very obviously cropped out the WIKIPEDIA logo right under it showing this was simply pulling a result from a Wikipedia page. Ironically enough, he kept in his screenshot the fact that Brave produced Gateway pundits actual website as the first result, didn't slap any extra labels on it or anything.