The trouble is that that version was hype too. Wikipedia is not a press coverage scrapbook (WP:LINKFARM) - I realise it was put in to peacock Ethereum for the AFD (which is why it looked so artificial), but the point stands that if those articles are worth including, they need to actually be used as references.
I note also the heading is "reception" - none of it is talking about how Ethereum has been received, it's just a list of press clippings. From e.g. the version before I touched it, there's two statements from non-SP-notable people and one from someone notable enough to have a WP article who also happens to do amateur economics blogging.
So if a "Reception" section is to be of value, it needs to actually be about the reception -