A developer who's working/hacking Mono for fun will certainly want to work with the latest version. But consider a VP of Development who is charged with deciding whether an existing .NET application should be ported to Mono. A suggestion to this person that she/he replace Visual Studio .NET with a version of Mono that has to be built from source will clearly go nowhere!
The issue is stability. A company that is experimenting with Linux might chose the Debian platform because of it's slow and careful release cycle, which yields the reliability Debian is known for. With respect to Mono, the assumption is going to be that the most stable Mono on Debian will be the version that is available using the package manager on the most stable Debian release.
In "selecting" Mono Version 1.0.5 for the article, I duplicated the decision that a development manager likely would have made for porting an application that has some mission criticality. For operational applications that are integrated into your daily business activity, you don't immediately jump to the latest development version. You can't afford to be so experimental. Instead, you look for a version that has gone through a reasonable testing cycle, where the most significant and blatant bugs have been addressed -- even if that version is missing some nice features that are available in later releases.
So, from a Development Manager's point of view, is the article "shamefully out-of-date"? I don't think so.