The author has bad style, but he's not writing nonsense. He edited the statement because he was bullied into it, not because it was nonsense.
I would try to avoid words such as "modality"---"qualification" might be better---but the point he makes is clear. He spends several paragraphs defining what he's talking about and then makes a case. It actually follows the lemma, lemma, theorem formula closely. He goes on to offer evidence for his point. Summarized, he says: over time citations can lend credibility to an otherwise unproved statement. He then says programmer productivity disparities haven't been conclusively demonstrated. That might have been a better starting point for the article.
He's guilty of disorganized writing, and being influenced by literary theory, but his point is otherwise legitimate and capable of being proved or disproved. (I don't know how much he's edited the article since.)
I would try to avoid words such as "modality"---"qualification" might be better---but the point he makes is clear. He spends several paragraphs defining what he's talking about and then makes a case. It actually follows the lemma, lemma, theorem formula closely. He goes on to offer evidence for his point. Summarized, he says: over time citations can lend credibility to an otherwise unproved statement. He then says programmer productivity disparities haven't been conclusively demonstrated. That might have been a better starting point for the article.
He's guilty of disorganized writing, and being influenced by literary theory, but his point is otherwise legitimate and capable of being proved or disproved. (I don't know how much he's edited the article since.)