In what sense? Why do I have to paste this link: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html here of all places?
Don't take my word for it, ask a famous Lisper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_Better
Also, I'm afraid Java is a perfect counterexample for "worse is better". It does everything and then some, but there are better (like, worse - less complicated, easier to use, more focused) solutions for almost everything Java does... And Java is still insanely popular.
Lastly, you seem to want to equate popularity with quality, and then you give Linux as an example. Surely, Windows is better because it's installed on many more PCs than Linux?
Java does that. Linux does that. Windows does that. Lisp doesn't.
And note - your article wasn't written by the author - it was written by someone else.
You're entitled to your own definition of words, in this case you defined "worse" (and this definition is very popular, too!) and it's ok. My perspective is different and so my definition is - I don't care about "average people" at all, I like very much "mental contortions" and I enjoy making more than shipping, and so "worse" for me means something different altogether.
I just wanted to what you meant by "worse", really. I won't agree with you here, but I understand and accept your opinion.
I edited my previous post in reply to your note at the end.
There are limits of course, and always complexity, but distributed incentive based systems appear to empirically work rather well.