The author of the article seems to forget that while you should take any source with a grain of salt, online ones in particular. Wikipedia has the advantage that it is subject to quality control (despite of what the author says) althought it's nearly impossible to keep an eye out on all entries. Wikipedia has the advantage of allowing the readers to track down the sources for any given entry. If there aren't any, you can contact the author and ask where they got it.
And no, it's not to propagate your views or that of your peers.
I don't think this is a particularly good article in case you didn't notice...
Mgm