The three of them [i.e. Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, Tim Shell] were attracted to Objectivism for a reason. The Objectivist stance is that there is a reality of objects and facts independent of the individual mind. By extension, a body of knowledge could be assembled that was considered representative of this single reality. Put simply, objectivity relates to what is true, rather than ruling whether something is true or false. And their encyclopedia could detail what is true in the world without judgments. Sanger would put it this way: "Neutrality, we agreed, required that articles should not represent any one point of view on controversial subjects, but instead fairly represent all sides".Considered as a whole, this makes very little sense. Many philosophical systems, and many non-philosophical ones, such as basic common sense, consider that there is a reality of objects and facts independent of the individual mind. It's not that Objectivism has a monopoly on this idea. It follows (given a few other assumptions, such as reliable sense perception) that a body of knowledge could be established or documented which was representative of external reality. More common sense.
And then he writes "Put simply, objectivity relates to what is true, rather than ruling whether something is true or false." This is at best incoherent, and at worst a non sequitur. What is meant by 'relates to what is true'? Does it mean that the assembled body of knowledge is true? Well of course it must be, otherwise it wouldn't be true (first year philosophy students learn that 'knows that p' implies 'p'). And why 'without judgments'? Isn't judgment required to assemble a 'body of knowlege'? Finally, there is the statement quoted from Sanger, which I discussed earlier here, about not representing any one point of view. Larry Sanger is a competent philosopher, and I'm sure that whatever he said to Lih when he was interviewed got pretty garbled and mixed up by the time it reached the printing presses.