Not quite. The list has been modified several times over the centuries and was certainly "backfilled" to Peter.
For example:
Corrections Made to Official List of Popes
Revelations of "Pontifical Yearbook 2001"
VATICAN CITY, JUNE 5, 2001 (Zenit.org).- New historical research has prompted almost 200 corrections to the existing biographies of the Popes, from St. Peter to John Paul II.
The discoveries are included in the opening pages of the new edition of the "Pontifical Yearbook 2001," the "who's who" of the Catholic Church published by the Vatican Press.
The 13 pages entailed are the most rigorous study to date on the history of the papacy, confirming the uninterrupted succession of the Bishops of Rome. Researchers, however, are uncertain of the exact dates of the first pontificates and, in one case, doubt the exact order. This is why the yearbook does not assign a succession number to each pontiff.
Including Karol Wojtyla, there have been 264 Popes, but 266 pontificates. Benedict IX reigned three times between 1032 and 1048. The first time, his pontificate was interrupted by the intrusion of Sylvester III. After he returned to Peter's Chair, Benedict IX resigned and was succeeded by Gregory VI. Then, following Clement II's death, Benedict IX returned to the papacy for the third time.
The yearbook has notable improvements, including a new graph that has done away with 500 pages. The new volume has 2,068 pages.
The most interesting corrections to papal history correspond to the chronology of the first two centuries. Exact dates of the pontificates are uncertain. A dozen Popes have been given two possible dates, in keeping with historical calculations.
The family name of one Pope has been corrected, and the listed birthplaces of nine Popes have changed.
Spain lost claim to a native-born Pontiff. St. Damasus (366-384), whose literary work is testified by the catacombs, and who was considered a native of the Iberian Peninsula, was, in fact, born in Rome.
The corrections result from the enormous work carried out by historian Giovanni Maria Vian, member of the Pontifical Committee of Historical Sciences, who was also a scientific adviser of the "Encyclopedia of Popes," published last year by Treccani, Italy's most prestigious literary publishers.
Vian explained the corrections to the Italian newspaper Avvenire. He said that in the second half of the 20th century, historical research has taken some important steps, "therefore, the chronology of the Popes of the first two centuries is more uncertain."
The most significant historical doubt affects Peter's second successor. After Linus, Cletus (80-92) or Clement could have been Pope, either between 68 and 76; or between 92 and 99. Therefore, one could have been Pope before the other.
Yet, "the new discoveries of those years reinforce the credibility of the succession of the Bishops of Rome," Vian concluded. The "Pontifical Yearbook 2001" may be purchased on Internet at http://www.ixtmedia.com.
ZE01060504
There is no evidence of such extensive "backfilling." That article you posted mentions...let's see...some question about dates, family names, birthplaces, in one case the order of office. But as far as the overall list and its fundamental integrity, that you can find in any secular encyclopedia because it rests on solid historical evidence. Let's run through a tiny bit of that evidence for a moment.
Eusebius, writing soon after A.D. 300, has the following in Chapter 3 of his History of the Church (I'm cutting and pasting here from various sections):
After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle....After Vespasian [*the Roman emperor] had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him. In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, delivered his office to Anencletus.....In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years.And he continues on from there. We actually still have a letter written by Clement, so arguing he was made up would be a little strange. And if you think Eusebius was too late of a source, I can take you back to St. Irenaeus writing around A.D. 170-180 or so. Irenaeus as a boy knew St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John--so his testimony is only a few degrees away from the Apostles themselves. Here's from Book 3 of Irenaeus' Against Heresies:
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric....To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.