I acknowledge the difference, but it is quantitative, not qualitative.
> We dont apply similar standards to blogs nor videos nor art - them being crappy is not "taking away our attention resource".
That's because the attention cost was driven way down by awesome information retrieval systems that we have (google, etc.). But the cost is still there and it is a good idea to compare it against benefits. Again, this doesn't mean that you should not publish anything.
> Publishing them is not using someone elses attention.
If you publish anything, you expect it to be found by someone (otherwise, why publish at all?). Voila, you've used their attention.
> And I dont go around hating on eHow. I do expect google to put them down in ranking over time and I do structure my queries so that I dont hit them.
This just corroborates my point that the cost is real. In this case the cost is paid by google (they have to expend resources to fight SEO spam) and you (you have to reformulate your queries).
> Also, small one time open source project is not tweaking SEO like content farms. That comparison does not work either.
I'm afraid without concrete examples we are talking past each other. Of course a small-time project that is clearly marked as such is totally OK, but the original post by saurik mentioned squatting common names and overpromising on features, which is definitely into the SEO territory.