I think they bring that up as one of the many ways the original author might disguise their amateurism. It's definitely not a bad thing to write "well", but faking an authoritative voice is a common problem.
Waggoner's article is actually more bizarre to me on the second read. The claim does not appear to be that the paper bad, just that interested, non-credentialed amateurs don't get to have (public) opinions, no matter how well-reasoned. While I'm highly skeptical of armchair epistemology a priori, there are plenty of criticisms of the (un)linked article that are more interesting and educational than pointing out it's written by someone without a PhD in epistemology.
I don't think that's his intended meaning: "There isn’t enough time to evaluate everything on the merits" from the article.