It’s an interesting suggestion, however, I can see a few potential challenges:
The methodology is determined by Wikipedia editors’ consensus alone. It’s unclear what the ultimate basis for inclusion/exclusion may be, or whether there is a uniform standard applied.
The list is far less comprehensive than MBFC and other rating sites.
The scope/purpose of the Wikipedia list is very different from ours. Although we are both ultimately interested in factual, verifiable truth, news/current event aggregation is not the same purpose as encyclopedic archiving.
The list is sometimes too granular, and sometimes too broad to be useful for live content moderation. For example, some sources are categorized differently based on the type of content, and others are grouped together.
We would want to discuss and navigate these issues prior to incorporating this list into our communities.