This story is sensationalist and poorly researched.
Imagine the days before books became widespread. Omg, something is written here that isn't true! The person who wrote it isn't here to provide any evidence! Books suck!
The author of this piece appears to have done just enough research to cover their preconceived opinions. There is a huge amount of relevant information available, reams of academic papers, years of international conferences. Try search terms "Semantic Web" (it's ref'd in the piece, rather telling that it's lower-case there) or "Linked Data".
But that's not necessary to show the fallacy here. No source of information is 100% reliable. Not even this Web page.
Notably, provenance isn't the end of the story.
The way the Web works means that facts can be checked against other sources. This is especially true for modern Web data - when expressed in machine-readable form, such as material propagated by Wikidata. Yes, the provenance chain and other forms of trust can be very important. But the Web of Data is still young. Mostly-good information is an excellent starting point.
That Wikidata has a liberal license is laudable. It means that the material can be reused openly, and even, yes, corrected.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
