Wow. That was a terrible article. Their example is searching for a person's name and then claiming the results didn't give them the information they wanted.
Except they don't tell you what they were wanting! They mention songs, stories, history.. well you could add those terms if that's what you're looking for and get results that are a lot more specific to what you want.
Bringing up the Wikipedia page is probably the _best_ possible option given how vague the query is. Sure the first 3 lines that get turned into the blurb may or may not say anything useful, but everyone knows what Wikipedia is and how it works. If you're just looking for random information about a topic, that's a great place to go as it will have at least a little bit of all of those categories mentioned above and you can go redo your search with more specific terms once you've decided what you're interested in.
And OK sure you can pull up countless examples of when somebody somewhere made a troll edit to the Wikipedia page.. but what on earth makes the author think that the (usually completely unreviewed and uncurated) articles from "way way down the list" will more accurate in any sense?
Same with the news stories. How is Google supposed to know if you're interested in the most recent news or the most controversial news over time?
If you don't even know what you're looking for, how the hell do you expect Google (or any other search engine) to know? A "story" is fine, but if all I'm looking for are concert dates, I just want a damned list of dates and cities I don't want a whole bloody "story," whatever that even means given the lack of context.