Although Wales serves as a sort of public face of Wikipedia and has some persuasive authority, the headline implies (the article less so) that he's running the show, i.e. in a position where he could "agree" or "refuse" to comply with censorship on behalf of Wikipedia. He used to make those kinds of decisions, but has long since turned over control to a more stable, less benevolent-dictator-for-life kind of setup. Nowadays policy is ultimately set by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (where he's one of ten trustees), and day-to-day decisions would be up to the Wikimedia staff, in consultation with people on wikis and the mailing lists, overseen by executive director Sue Gardner.
In any case, I do think he is accurately conveying the general sentiment held by all those parties, so the substance of the article is right. But I think the current setup actually makes that view even stronger, because even if Wales somehow changed his mind and argued for censorship being the least-bad option, he would probably have a hard time pushing that through; hence Wikipedia's position doesn't depend on any one person.