The post argues against images on the web which are "advertisements of content" and "made to take over your attention and again". A screenshot of how a popular page is experienced (eg. HN: I wouldn't expect that to be bad at all) here would be content, I think.
The post argues for turning images off. Period. Because they are not useful and break the author's ideal "uniform" web page. He then mentions he might turn them on for sites that are useful (like wikipedia). He even explicitly states that he thinks that his view will be a giant controversy.
How would you possibly know if the images on this page would be informative content, or advertising attention grabbers, when they're all turned off?
Perhaps it's about prejudices we have when we interpret the content we read.
I get a dislike for "decorational" images like a photo of a random bridge over a river (c) AStockPhotoSite when talking about building a new bridge in the town: that ain't content. An illustration of the bridge to be, an architectural depiction, would be considered content.
Wikipedia seldom has images of the former type: they are all there to expand the content being represented.
So, I've read the article according to my biases, and I do not see such a strong opinion against images: to me it reads not as if they might, but rather that they do enable them on Wikipedia.
