I mean that sort of just proves the point doesn’t it? The terms are all so context sensitive and overlapping that even while explaining the issues it’s a struggle to not fall into the traps.
These aren't articles. READ THE FIRST LINE. They're random crude notes, scribbled down in 1988, and UNEDITED, so full of all sorts of horrible mistakes (that's what "unedited notes" means.)
The actual completed articles were written years later, many were even inspected/corrected by the phys-L group of college physics educators. http://amasci.com/ele-edu.html
Quote: "Scuff across a rug, and you charge your body to several thousand volts." Pardon me?
Further down: "Can an object have a certain voltage? No. Why not?" How does that fly with the above statement?
These articles are exactly the confusing non-pedagogical and partially straight out incorrect nonsense that the author criticises in other works.