No. The reality is that the canon is, simply and literally, the actual content of filmed and televised Star Trek. That canon is not absolutely consistent; no canon is (Biblical canon least of all). But it is what defines the "reality" of the series' universe.
The problem is that people insist on misdefining "canon" to mean any number of other things, such as "What I want to be real Trek" or "That which is absolutely consistent and unquestionable" or "That which Paramount commands us to obey." You're right that none of those concepts have real meaning or functionality here, but none of those concepts equates with canon. There is a canon; the canon is, plain and simple, the show itself. The original work, as opposed to the secondary works derived from or interpreting it. That is what the word "canon" actually means.
Saying that an individual considers something official is as paradoxical as saying that an individual considers something canonical. "Official" means that it has the cachet of an office, of the company or agency that has authority over the matter. If something is official, it's because Paramount says it's official, not because you or I think it should be.
And as I said, the staff-written reference materials are considered official by Paramount, in that tie-in creators are instructed to conform to their conjectures where not overtly contradicted by canon. But "official" is a far cry from "canonical," and the two don't have that much to do with each other.
And I'm not deciding what is canon, I'm simply explaining the definition of the word. Canon literally means the core text, the essential work or body of work, exclusive of anything external or supplementary to that essential body. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of the literal dictionary definition of the word "canon" in general terms. The decision as to what actually constitutes the core text lies in the hands of the people responsible for creating that text, so they can decide what the canon contains; but what the word "canon" means in basic terms is a matter of established definition, not individual opinion.
"Represent?" That's a bit pretentious. It's an entertainment site tying into a show. It's meant to be entertaining, not to stand for some deep principle or embody the core values of the corporation or something. It's just supply trying to meet demand. It's a business venture.
And let's face it, only a tiny minority of fans even cares to debate what is or isn't canon. The issue would only come up in the minds of fans who are aware of supplemental/tie-in materials beyond the show and are curious to know how it relates to the show itself. But according to estimates posted here by former Pocket editor John Ordover, such tie-ins are generally read by only two percent of a show's viewing audience. So probably over 95 percent of Trek viewers have no particular interest in the question of canon, and a very large percentage of those have probably never even heard the word applied in this context.
So it's supply and demand. Most Trek viewers couldn't care less about the Great Canon Debate, so ensuring accurate information about it is not going to be at the tippy-tip-top of Startrek.com's priority list. It's a big site; they've got a lot of other stuff to do.
