In reply: I created that page. It was not intended to be frivolous and was certainly not vandalism. Nor do I believe it was nonsense. It was intended to be a stub for an exploration of the psychological and social causes that make wikis and similar collaborative tools appealing to some individuals but not to others. I apologize for not getting back sooner to the task of extending it. However, as Ward Cunningham has noted, one of the appealing facets of wiki is that contributions can be made in increments of paragraphs and sentences. 

 The impetus for creating the article came from my own experience administering private wiki's for corporate clients and non-profit organizations.  I noticed that only a small percentage of the potential users actually made contributions to the wiki and that, in some cases, there was outright resistance to the concept that persisted even after the usual concerns about vandalism and accidental deletion had been addressed.  As an ardent advocate of wiki and group collaboration technologies, I wanted to create a page that might attract contributions from others more knowledgeable than myself in organizational and behavioral science.  

 It's one thing for someone reading the page to consider it nonsense. The content was incomplete and I may well have written unclearly. However, I would have expected that an appropriate NPOV response would have been to add content to the page explaining what, specifically, was deemed nonsensical. Another possibility would have been to move the content to another page dealing with related behavioral issues. By the way, I searched Wikipedia and the web looking for similar material before creating the page, but did not find anything apropos.  

 In any case, deleting the page and accusing me of vandalism seems entirely out of line.