The original meaning of antipattern is more than a common practice that's a bad idea. It's something that appears to be very good in a certain situation, but is actually bad. In order to document it as an antipattern, you have to describe why people think it is a good idea in the context in which they use it. Then you have to explain why those good ideas don't work out. This article fails to do this, IMHO. It's just a rant about something the author doesn't like (exactly the same as this post ;-) ).
The essay is still this way, because (a) the title is well-known in certain circles (call it branding) and (b) it's real work to find a new structure.
If readers of your article come away more confused about dev/random vs. dev/urandom and the veracity of manpages, that is a positive result which will lead them to the aforementioned promised land. So I don't think your article fits the (anti-)pattern.
I think this is why these lists are popular. They are easy to read and easy to digest. I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with a list. It has the advantages I point out. The problem comes where you have a complicated and nuanced topic and distill it to a list. Because you have simplified the argument, it is usually one sided and deficient. That's why it is usually trash. It doesn't have to be, though, IMHO. Some things lend themselves well to being expressed as a list (for example, a list of potential alternative solutions to a problem).
At least it's enough for me to know to avoid it when I'm searching for a solution to a problem.
> Myth: People have unique names
> Do people have unique names?
> No, because XYZ. This varies by region because ABC. And in this case, this assumption caused a major production outage: [link]
Turn it into a detailed discussion, as opposed to a debate. Also, you can share things that people _can_ assume to be true, or can _usually_ assume in specific contexts.
So you should know what is correct before pointing out what is wrong? That doesn't sound right.
> Getting rid of a flawed but workable model without having a better one to replace it with is not an improvement.
This ignores the opportunity gained from not doing something. If "Myth Lists" aren't worth doing, not doing them is an improvement. You don't need to have a "better alternative", because "doing nothing" is already better.
Having said that, the article doesn't exactly show that Myth Lists don't work. It's just an opinion of someone who read one of these lately and didn't like it.
In the right context--where there is widespread misunderstanding (or ignorance) around a number of points--it seems a reasonable format.
Lists and FAQs are arguably somewhat lazy writing but it imposes a structure that's easy to follow for both the writer and the reader and that's not a bad thing. And talking to editors I work with, it does seem to be a format that readers like based on the data.
Actually, I wonder if it even needs to be a list. I think a headline like "Economics explained in 20 words" would be attractive in the same way. If it was 100 words, I doubt it would work as well, even though both headlines would be obviously absurd.
What's going on, there?
I certainly don't feel compelled to write for SEO or eyeballs. But easy and quick doesn't need to mean bad and is often OK for day-to-day stuff.
Most things I publish are in the 800-1000 word range. These days I'll tend to go multi-part rather than the 3K-5K stuff I used to do fairly routinely.
Assumptions can simultaneously be commonly held and uncontroversially false. The trick is pointing them out.
I think the form fits great with the content. So it can work, but the myths listed have to actually be widely held and promulgated false beliefs.
The answer then ends up being just as general ("nuh uh!") and so simplistic that it is useless.
So I guess what I'm saying is that it turns into... Twitter.
In the potential failure to recognize the intended audience of these lists, I wonder if the antipattern accusation is really an antipattern (hehe). But I honestly don't know - Were these lists intended to be used as programming guides?
I can't find it now, but there was a great comment on a previous "falsehoods" post about how the only compelling reason to frame content this way is to get clicks and drive engagement through contention and disagreement, and that the world would simply be a better place if the tone was more in line with "here are some super interesting cases you may not have thought of when you do X". See https://xkcd.com/1053/ for a similar sentiment.
If the myth isn't something common enough to be googled for, then you're just confusing people. Just state the facts, in as concise and clear a fashion as you can.
I think people are drawn to the "myths" structure because it breaks up the page visually. It tells people, "Here is a small unit of information. You don't have to read the whole page to get a story". There are lots of other ways to indicate that: headers, lists, images. It's a correct intuition that a flat page full of paragraphs is intimidating, but there are other ways.
 in the sense of "myth" as "commonly-repeated falsehood". Most falsehoods aren't myths, and a better use of "myth" means a fiction that resonates deeply and universally. Fictions aren't mere falsehoods, either.
One of the most annoying things people do is to write posts (technically answers) that attempt to "surprise" people by telling them something they thought was true, but is in fact, not true.
And so many of them are really convoluted and depend on weird non-standard definitions of things. Something like "technically red things are blue" or the like. (because they absorb blue light maybe? So you are defining things by what they absorb rather than what they reflect? Whuuu?) So, so many answers are like that, but maybe not to that extreme.
Yes it is a clickbaity technique. They are always wanting to blow people's minds.