I think that part of the problem is that a fair and honest representation of "intelligent design theory" would never be accepted by the proponents of intelligent design theory as fair and honest. That is quite simply because intelligent design theory has been advanced for entirely dishonest purposes: it is, at its core, a bald-faced attempt to pass off religious belief as if it were science, for the explicit purpose of forcing a religious belief into a nonreligious context under the cloak of scientific validity. (Many of its proponents do not themselves admit, and may even be cognitively unaware, that this is its purpose.) The problem is that you just cannot get a supporter of intelligent design to set aside their fervent conviction that "God said it, therefore it is true" is a logically correct inference.
The problem is that demonstrating this takes more than a paragraph; it takes an extended examination of both the claims made by intelligent design proponents, and the history and motivations of the major proponents of the theory. And most people don't have either the patience to sit still for that presentation, or even the intellect to fully understand it.
Intelligent design theory is embedded in a huge multilayered conflict in broader culture. To expect Wikipedia, with its stark lack of methodology for the mediation of conflict in any sort of reasonable way, to reach a reasonable conclusion of that conflict is completely unreasonable. No, this one won't end until all the people supporting ID die off, plain and simple.
The fact that intelligent design cannot carry the opinion of the Christian Science Monitor's editorial board (see yesterday's
editorial) should be telling enough. Simply put, intelligent design theory isn't a scientific theory at all; it is, instead, a political strategy, nothing more.