The article is correct, however the way you have interpreted it is incorrect.
The article does NOT say that dove is a Past Participle of the PRESENT PERFECT tense. What it says is that both dived and dove are ok in the SIMPLE PAST TENSE. Dived came later by analogy to other verbs that decline by vowel alternation.
In the present perfect, only HAVE DIVED is ok.
Here is why: English, like other germanic languages, has past participles ending in -n and -ed (compare to German -en and -t). For example, have begun, have run, have strung. Exceptions like "have come" came about due to loss of the -en suffix (compare to German "habe gekommen" which still has it).
To have a past participle formed through vowel alternation and ending in -ve is odd. It may catch on in time.
Supposedly, people say "have dove" by analogy to "drove". However, the correct form there, too, is "have DRIVED".
SOMENAME: It's not about Past Simple vs Present Perfect. It's the formula, which uses the PAST PARTICIPLE.
Simple past does not use the PP. Past Perfect and Present Perfect use the SAME PP.
Thus: I had driven, I have driven; I had dived, I have dived.
I really like the discussions about the origins of the vowel alternation. More than likely (perhaps attributable to German?) though, the shift is due to the "Sing, sang,sung" principle.