who created it is irrelevant
I think, anyway, unless there was a set political agenda. I haven't checked the link you put in yet, but will do.
I believe the problem intrinsic to Wikipedia and other things similar to it (of which there is a plethora) is that they insist upon "objectivity". I believe that as humans, we are incapable of being objective, and therefore, especially with "hot" issues such as political ones, there is no such thing as "equal time", at least, it isn't fair to allow the occupier the same dignity as the occupied, the oppressor to the victim. Balance is something that these sources insist upon. For every opinion, they seek some kind of moderate middle ground. That this demands the watering down of views that contain bias (and are therefore human) Users of this are given a lot of "democracy", but it is worthless if they are being withheld information.
Again, the efforts made to keep up these middle roads seem to take away from the efforts better spent learning more, spreading the information we have. It seems to me a massive time waster, and hearing it from these academics in communications strategy simply adds to this feeling I already have.