This link was cited twice here, both times using the conclusion from the article's subhead: "Eradicating any organism would have serious consequences for ecosystems — wouldn't it? Not when it comes to mosquitoes, finds Janet Fang."
But I agree with you -- careful reading of the article itself suggests otherwise.
For example, "Taken all together, then, mosquitoes would be missed in the Arctic — but is the same true elsewhere?" or "the loss of these or other fish could have major effects up and down the food chain" or "without mosquitoes, thousands of plant species would lose a group of pollinators." Any "but that doesn't matter" commentary is couched in weasel words like "unlikely", and the concluding quote is from a mosquito control association.
Finally, article makes this remark, "Ultimately, there seem to be few things that mosquitoes do that other organisms can't do just as well — except perhaps for one. They are lethally efficient at sucking blood from one individual and mainlining it into another, providing an ideal route for the spread of pathogenic microbes."
We don't know the long term effects to evolutionary processes of losing that inter-species blood to blood route, and I for one would like to see a citation saying such a mechanism, existing since the Cambrian era 79 million years ago, is irrelevant at large time scales.
// Disclaimer: Almost everyone in my family contracted malaria while living in Africa.