Those are pretty poor examples of anything. nymag doesn't even get basic facts correctly. If posting bias uninformed hit pieces is all it took to win debates then the world would be a pretty sad place.
The nymag article has many links to archive.org historical versions of the site. People can judge for themselves by looking at the original facts instead of meta-commentary which attempts to summarize over facts.
If you look at the revision history of this (and related) pages, you'll see plenty of edits by people publicly campaigning for the takedown of that site on Twitter. I wouldn't trust Wikipedia to be unbiased given these conflicts of interest.
This comment is useless as it is, you can't dispute the veracity of the facts presented in the article without providing any kind of evidence yourself. Please, refrain from posting low-value comments like this one that add nothing to the conversation.