Worse, due to the Matthew Effect, these projects accumulate more interest due to momentum and extrinsic metrics, rather than due to their inherent quality. The ecosystem around software then uses these flawed measures as a proxy for quality because it has nothing else.

It’s as if the most important thing about software is that other people are talking about it.

I'm relieved that there is an actual term to describe this effect. It means that at least now a lot of people are aware of it.

Real[ity] criticism definitely takes a hit when a craft/hobby becomes popularized such that juicy reviews aggrandize. A vicious cycle forms, such that the projects with the most incredible claims get debunked by popular people -- which causes more people to check out the project and use it. Rinse and repeat. One of the least bad things is that for open-source projects, usually even if a project is built badly before it attains it's five minutes of fame, newly minted contributors often turn the ship around if the original architects have a shred of humility. It's not all bad...

Methodology merchants like “Uncle Bob” have built careers and even companies on that strategy

What 'incredible claims about his capabilities' did he make? (I came in late.)

Wasn't he involved in Chrysler's C3 project, the major success of which was the agile programming industry?

I always get Bob Martin and Martin Fowler mixed up

Could you be more specific?