When I read most articles, like you JD, I find them to be the "one size fits all" type. I feel that this is due mostly to the media and their desire to provide interesting articles, without sacrificing valuable real estate. Also, they feel (the editors) that if articles become too technical, then it will reduce the number of readers due to the presumption that most are in the neophyte to somewhat knowledgeable range.
Of the handful of ones I have written, whole sections have been removed "for a better read" by the editors. Typically these parts are the less generic/very specific parts. Sometimes, if the article points out a "major" problem with one of their larger advertiser's product, the wording will be re-written to soften the effect.
Most of the articles that contain enough meat to really be worth the read are the ones that come in installments, and I don't mean just part 1 & 2. A major article on the pros and cons of a technology or product, are now contained in "white papers" and not found as an article anyway.
If you want help on a subject, it will not be found as an article, like back in the 70's when Dr. Dobb's Journal was more like a newsletter than the glossy mag it is today. I could read an article on Pidgin and get the source code and how it worked, etc. where today, if there was an article on a language like Pidgin, it would be more like a advertisement than containing any really useful or pertinent content.
I say, let the masses ramble and keep it unedited, unless some dunderhead makes racist, crude, irresponsible remarks. Then, it should not so much be edited, as the person making such remarks should be censored by their peers or, if really offensive, banned (although we all know that it is really, really, really hard to make a ban stick).
