See above. It's what they do on screen, and is not out of character in the least with regard to what's gone before, therefore it is what they do whatever an artcle written nearly thirty years later has to say.
I think that's always going to be a problem with a programme with as much background continuity as Doctor Who has. We try to fit the pieces together as best we can when looking at the whole picture, but sometimes they just don't fit. When they don't we try to dismiss them as errors, but at the end of the day the reason they may not seem to 'fit' could well be related to a later story. We try to work out a Dalek timeline, taking their first episode, Evil of the Daleks and Remembrance all into account and it never really makes sense. Which came first middle and last chronologically? We then try to create an absolute overview with the benefit of 40 years hindsight instead of taking the perhaps correct stance of 'what's on screen is what was meant and anything that came later to contradict it...well never mind just enjoy the tale'.