This article is extreme; but the points it raises are a major problem for Wikipedia.
I used to be a fairly regular editor but one day realised I was spending 60% of my edits on argument and pointless meta (mostly trying to help defend field experts with not much wiki experience from the idiots).
There is a broad amount of sanity on Wikipedia but there are very very vocal areas that are causing problems.
The sloppy adherence to the notability guidelines has pissed me off so much in the past that I've entirely written off even bothering to contribute to wikipedia anymore. I've posted pages on people, software, projects and the like that met or exceeded the guidelines and had all but 1 or 2 deleted within a day or so and spent literally months on getting a few deletions reversed until I finally just threw in the towel.
I'm constantly surprised at the things that wikipedia doesn't have in it more than what it does. And I'd wager that there were pages on those subjects in the past and they've simply been deleted.
In other cases, subjects that I've referred to on occasion over the years have seen their article content slowly diminished over time to be practically useless. Things like screenshots being taken down, history or explanations being gutted, external links disappearing. It's all becoming basically useless on many levels.
I used to start research at wikipedia to get good pointers to sites, now I pretty much just google and hit next page a few times to get past the SEO spam.
I used to be a fairly regular editor but one day realised I was spending 60% of my edits on argument and pointless meta (mostly trying to help defend field experts with not much wiki experience from the idiots).
There is a broad amount of sanity on Wikipedia but there are very very vocal areas that are causing problems.