You mean when sources such as the American Museum of Natural History website state that "Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA" which is the only percentage mentioned, then they are also comparing it with the few fragments they barely remember from high school Biology, 40 years ago?
Likewise MIT: Researchers have learned that despite the 99 percent similarity between the DNA of humans and our closest relative (https://news.mit.edu/2005/chimp)
And https://www.science.org/content/article/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives: "Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA."
The parroting of this claim even today, with confirmation bias, which is not even from 40 years ago and is often unqualified, is what the article counters, and explains.
Incorrect!
The article, rather, makes a "big deal" of the fact that any comparison expressed as a more-or-less exact percentage, that any quantification of a "genetic resemblance" expressed as a decimal-pointed figure, must be taken with a grain of salt / will, by its very nature, be misleading, if taken too literally.
The article then proceeds to attempt to "make hay" and discredit the whole concept of evolution based upon that Straw Man Fallacy.
Regards,