It's not well sourced. It's a speculation in an old Popular Mechanics article published before the official accident report. The official accident report does not identify the sidesticks as a factor in the crash (because they weren't).
Downvotes are so cool, right? Just post your better informed opinion and enjoy the upvotes. This has the side-effect of not just informing me but others about your more correct opinion.
The thread you link to explains why the sidesticks are a red herring:
>Again, the stick inputs from the PF are very easy to see if you just look at them.
You would see that immediately if you sat in an airbus pilot seat.
The PNF is going to spend most of his time looking at the instruments. He's hardly any more likely to be looking off to the side at his own control stick than he is to be looking at the other control stick, so linking them would be unlikely to make any difference.
I didn't say anything about sidesticks (in a comment below i did). I don't believe myself that the sidesticks were a real factor in themselves - but if the PM had sensed that PF (bonin) was pulling up he would have reacted earlier.
The PNF wouldn't have sensed anything because his hand wouldn't have been on the stick.
The premise of the Popular Mechanics article is that for a significant period, each of the pilots thought that they were the PF and were unaware that the other pilot was making stick inputs at the same time. This is unlikely, because the Airbus has a clear "dual input" warning. If you read the transcript, you can see that there's actually quite a lot of discussion between the pilots about who is in control. It was only the captain who had any clear idea of the correct control inputs to make, and he wasn't seated at the controls at all, so linked sticks wouldn't have made any difference to him.
This is well sourced, sadly not on wikipedia. But there are countless threads of real pilots.
I guess Air France had some influence.