The article is really only about the one of them. The summary can refer to both of them and only explain the one
it is about, while still being sufficient. It really is kind of pedentic, IMO. If you want to know more about the error-correcting code (that the article is not about), you will click the article and discover the one-liner dedicated to explaning why this article is not about it, regardless.
A long, well-written statement abstractly disagreeing with mine does not make a fact.
is the presence of another coding scheme different from network coding relevant to the model presented by the article?
No, it really isn't... it's just an introductive talking point to get you thinking about the intricacies of applying something like "network coding," which involves a lot more than a relationship with "error-correcting coding." There are plenty of other factors that preclude a successful application of "network coding," one of which happens to be error-correcting coding.
This isn't a question of the article, or the summary - thus my point stands that you did not comprehend what it was that was being stated. CSMA/CD is basically assumed to be present on a dynamically routed network, by any self-respecting geek that is going to be interested in this subject.