Shannons Law is about data transmission capacity, binary data being dumped into a noisy channel at one end and yet being able to ensure it can be accurately recovered at the other.
It is not relevant to Wikipedia.
I don't mean this as against you Paul, I know you're only quoting a source, but I really hate it when people subvert very specific science or maths theorem for something utterly unrelated.
Yeah, I'm not knowledgeable about Shannon's Law but the article reads like it's one big metaphor for information evolution or information transmission.
In that sense, it's relevant to Wikipedia in a stretch. Data as well as clarity of data transmission after all is not really limited to math theorem.
If memetics could be compared to diseases and genes could be given virtues of selfishness, then the theory of Math is in my opinion just as open to metaphors on other issues. This doesn't mean I'm defending the author because certainly I don't really understand what this is all specficially about but it doesn't read as irrelevant to me when it's really portrayed as a big picture thing. Wrong? Sure and I would hope you would explain it further to me but irrelevant...not so much except you're right maybe it is subversive...but can it really be subversive?
After all, who exactly is the audience of the author? He's not selling or making it clearer for bored ADD science interested readers. If anything it reads like a food for thought attempt at a metaphor and thus maybe the author over-stretched his metaphor but I doubt he aims to subvert when the end result is still a confusing mish mash of ideas and analogies and not really an article with a clear cut conclusion.