And actually he is perfectly right: That *is* our biggest problem. Not the copying, not errors, not the missing editors, not the enthusiasts he mentions. But the "superfluous trivia". Our problem is noise, in en: even more as in de:. The noise repells qualified authors and editors. This is the reason why the article quality does not increase the way that should be expected given the idea behind wikipedia and the popularity and it already has.
As an encyclopaedia, we should reduce noise. Instead we are creating noise by accepting articles on any subject. For me - opposing that noise-accepting-policy since one and a half years now - that outsiders statement is very interesting.
Can you give a definition of "noise" vs. "non-noise" topics that does not ultimately boil down to arbitrarily including some while excluding others?