I won’t attempt to answer that question because I’m not really sure what you mean, and also because I’m skeptical of the whole idea of a wormhole in the first place - as far as I know, while you can write down the equations for a static (unchanging, eternal) wormhole in general relativity, there is no solution that describes the formation of a wormhole, so all of these wormholes that physicists supposedly think are out there would have to have been there from the very beginning, and none of them come from very realistic energy distributions anyways. (But maybe @PdotdQ could comment on that.)
I will make a couple of comments on the articles, though. The first one contains this line (talking about wormholes, right after noting we have zero evidence they exist):
Still, because the theory for their existence is so strong, astrophysicists assume they do exist.
This strikes me more as a statement of wildly sensationalistic science journalism than anything resembling the truth. Nevertheless, all the first article is really saying is that if wormholes exist, they might look a fair bit like black holes. Which… is not that much of a revelation. “Black holes might actually be wormholes” is an idea that has been around for decades; it stands to reason that they might look similar.
The third article is talking about a quantum entanglement experiment which, if you do a flying leap through a couple analogy hoops, could sort of be interpreted as something like something going through a wormhole. More sensationalism. It is a “wormhole” in the sense that a pair of beads bouncing back and forth between the endpoints of two rods is a “ball bouncing around on a pool table”:
|—o---------| ← this bead represents the ball’s x-position
|-----------o-| ← this bead represents the ball’s y-position
In fact, the analogy in question has an even more tenuous grasp on reality, since there really are beads on rods and balls on pool tables, but the mathematical objects on either side of the AdS/CFT correspondence have no physical counterparts. The idea cited in that article that all quantum entanglement could be related to wormholes in some way is, as best I can tell, an egregious extrapolation strapped to an unwarranted reification of an abstraction.
The second article is the most grounded, and just explains why our current understanding of physics leads to the conclusion that singularities form inside black holes. I do find it interesting, though, that Siegel talks about the Pauli Exclusion Principle, but completely ignores the fact that it isn’t at all the same kind of effect as the four fundamental forces. The four forces can’t prevent collapse to a singularity because they have to obey the speed of light limit, but the Pauli principle arises from the properties of the quantum state of the particles, which is a non-local object - it isn’t really clear that it is subject to the same limitation.
And none of that is terribly enlightening for what is going on in the center of a black hole, because nobody thinks our current understanding of physics remains accurate in such extremes anyways.
Anyways, there’s my 2 cents. 
Oops.