That might certainly be possible during a maneuver like a loop where there can be a centrifugal effect.
But the article seems to be addressing straight and level (but upside down) flight. Cruising along in a level path, the pilot would be inclined to fall out just as if the aircraft were suspended upside down in a museum. There’s no aerodynamic force or acceleration that will keep him held up. He needs a restraint.
On a slightly different note, one thing the article doesn’t address is that for some aircraft there’s no real distinction between upside down and right side up. The Extra 300 is a great example. That purpose-built stunt plane has a mid-set wing with a symmetrical airfoil. In other words, it’s the same wing upside down. That aircraft, in general, will perform just about identically upside down, except for the fact that the controls are all backwards.
As a matter of fact, most conventional wings are capable of providing sufficient lift even when upside down. Sure, the more highly-cambered the airfoil is, the more inefficient it will be when made to go upside down. And if you keep dialing up the camber, you’ll finally get to a point where there’s no way to generate sufficient lift upside down. But from an aerodynamic standpoint, there’s nothing terribly weird or difficult about upside-down wings.
Cambered airfoils are designed to increase effectiveness and efficiency when generating normal, right-side-up lift. This is done at the expense of being able to fly well upside down. This is usually fine, because there’s no real need to get your Cessna 182 inverted. But stunt planes are certainly not going to use wings that are so good in the up direction that they don’t work in the down.