I refer to this answer from Too much version control and bug tracking overhead per change? for which the question itself was actually the subject of a previous meta question. Quoted here in the unlikely event of changes:

Heavy processes are common, unfortunately. Some people - especially management - religiously imagine that processes produce products. So they overdo the processes and forget that it's really a handful of hard-working, smart people who actually create the products. For upper management, it's frightening to even think that their business is in the hands of few geeks, and so the close their eyes from the reality and think of their dear "process" instead, which gives them the illusion of control.

That's why agile startups with a handful of good engineers can beat big, established corporations, whose workers spend 95 % of their energy on process and reporting.

This answer is making grand assertions left and right without a single shred of evidence to back any of them up. Paraphrased from my comments:

• Which people are "some people"?
• What evidence is there for managers believing it more often than anyone else? Why would this be the case?
• Why liken it to a "religious belief"? Is there no factual/logical evidence in favour of the belief? How can we be sure? Have those people been questioned about their belief?
• Who claimed/claims that "processes produce products" and what was the context of that claim? If the answer, as I suspect, is "nobody", then why mention this at all?
• What does "overdo the process" mean? At what point does a process become "overdone"?
• Is it really true that the "business is in the hands of a few geeks?" Is this true in the 85% of programming jobs that are not in the software publishing industry, which is presumably where most of these heavy processes are being instituted?
• What does the phrase "close their eyes from the reality" mean? Do these people presumably have no accountability to their own managers, shareholders, board of directors, etc.? How would they justify this?
• What does "illusion of control" mean? How is it different from actual control? What provides the illusion and how is it supposed to keep people fooled?
• Although the answer technically only says that "agile startups" can beat "big established corporations", it's misleadingly worded as to imply that this is routine. To what degree does this actually happen and is there evidence that it's any more than chance, as opposed to better management?
• Where was the 95% figure derived from? Was this measured somewhere?

As much as I hate to pick on one person/post, this isn't information, it's entertainment. It's mindless, populist drivel clearly written with one purpose: to provoke an emotional response and farm upvotes.

And in this community, it works. Every single time. With 84 upvotes and just 1 downvote (mine, obviously), this is clearly not only the best answer, but many times better than any of the other answers, which the author stubbornly uses as a justification for why it doesn't need to be improved (can't blame him, I guess, I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth either).

But the most irritating part is the most recent comment:

This forum is not a scientific paper. Nobody, not you nor me, is going to provide an explanation for every single sentence he writes.

Call me old fashioned, but I thought that the whole point of the Subjective Question Guidelines was to elicit answers that would Back It Up:

Back It Up! means that your answers must be based on either:

• Something that happened to you personally
• Something you can back up with a reference

I realize that we're not Wikipedia. We're not even Skeptics.SE. We can afford to be a little more lax.

But who is correct, him or me? Do we/should we have no standards whatsoever for evidence, or are answers here supposed to be more than just statements of opinion?