I agree, however, the better articles only suggest highlighting the most relevant achievements and focussing on strengths etc. Surely some of the responsibility is on the author's own integrity. After all suggesting that someone focusses on the positives and leaves out the less positives (or some negatives) is not necessarily encouraging deception at all. An example is that if you were a junior member of a team and were allowed to silently attend in system architecture meetings saying that you were involved in the process is not untrue but saying you architected the system (even in part) is.