The article brings up an interesting point, but the problem is that there is an obvious surge to get the article edited a certain (biased) way to make that version get publicity. I've seen it happen before.
Here is an example when I noticed news started to say Greg Craig was Obama's advisor. Check the facts at the Election Commision and you'll find that
he is not Obama's advisor.
What happened is that Craig made an appearance at the Obama campaign, and that got reported as "an advisor." People started to update the Glen Craig page that so that it says he is Obama's advisors. More articles started to get written about the controversy of Glen Craig being Obama's advisor and point to the Wikipedia article as the source for such statement.
Now, someone has used one of those articles to
put the statement back into the Glen Craig article. Now somebody will probably say it is a secondary source even though it was based off the earlier statement put in Wikipedia.
Further, somebody else probably will say it is newsworthy to put such controversy in to Craig's and Obama's biography because it happened in their life. The fact still remains that the event started on Wikipedia even though Obama's website and the Federal Election Committee both do not have Glen Craig on the Obama campaign staff list.
Also, the Obama page doesn't make any mention of Glen Craig.