The idea is that OSM captures the multiple views of the boundary in dispute, allowing the user to choose their rendering.
Whilst good in theory, it's probably not different to other's approach in practise. Thinking people can choose to see a boundary as disputed, whilst nationalists on either side can choose to see it as soley theirs, thus amplifying their own echo chamber. The main difference from others is that the choice of rendering is potentially up to the individual, due to the availability of all the data, but in practise most people will be using a provider who has already made the choice for them.
Those "disputed" territories are still information though. In OSM's case, I might want to know which territories are disputed, and in what ways they are. You could give out that info.
