This is the fault of the journalist, not the historians. My wife is a history professor. Trust me when I say that historians don't hold opinions just for the sake of it.
She thinks that this is an unusual opinion among most historians but perhaps more common among art historians. She doesn't see much problem with this sort of work, but it is possible for this sort of thing to be done badly. She doesn't doubt that the cited historians have formed a detailed opinion here (rather than just being emotionally upset at somebody touching their things) but doesn't agree with them.
She rolled her eyes hard at the name "deOldify" and mentioned that there are a lot of dumb attempts at doing this that don't have any empathy for people (ex. redoing Shakespeare as rap to connect with young people without actually trying to understand young people, ironically this sort of thing was actually mentioned by Shiryaev).
There is a cost to careless distribution of primary sources (a good example I never considered was the loss of marginalia when digitizing books badly) but it is the job of historians to do this well and it can be done well.
