This article is totally wrong. 0^0 = 1 because it is defined by a group operation, not by "multiplying 0 by itself 0 times". It has to do with combinatorics or set theory (there are different ways to look at the problem):
I think his point was that 0 has no inverse. So in the literal sense, the reals are not a group under multiplication (although obviously, when somebody says "the reals are a group under multiplication", one usually interprets it as "R\{0} is a group under multiplication".)
This is vaguely relevant to the issue at hand because we are doing 0 to the 0.
Could you get every branch of Mathematics to agree to that? I think not. I was actually coming at it from the 2nd part of Source 1 (I first thought about it during my Real Analysis class) "The limits are all different so clearly no single value of 0 ^ 0 can be defined as the limit for every case".
Source 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Zero_to_the_zero...
Source 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_product