The parable in that article is not about one person iterating based on user feedback. It's about users taking action and building upon existing works. Which is awesome if everyone has similar needs. But what happens when that group-made bridge hangs too low and interferes with river traffic? Or if I think it should be redone with steel but you don't want to have it closed for a year while that happens? What if I think it helps my competitors too much, so I burn it and start a new bridge closer to where I want it?

This is why we plan things. So everyone has a stake in the process and we can try to make good decisions that fit everyone's needs. Top-down planning isn't the only way to go, for sure, but this article is idiotic as far as making a point that community development is always the way to go.

This is a simple parable that offers next-to-nothing as far as real world solutions except to say that, yes, we should make sure what we're building is useful. Which: No shit.