From the article, it seems like people are trying to write things in a way to make them prettier... and less accurate. Quote: "The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results. "
This is slightly on topic... take the wording from wikipedia that seems to be designed to appeal to the masses and probably has misinformation (looks like big pharmacy got their hands in this entry, phobia of skin thinning is mostly unfounded?) and then the words from an Indian dermatology website with lots of actual biology verbiage and sure seems to support the fact that steroid use for your skin is bad.
Indian Journal of Dermatology:
Random thing I found about scientists having problems with bad wikipedia entries: