You talk about what the article "looks like", but have you actually read it?
I found it to be a well-written, well-researched introduction to some of the problems in color theory. If that's what you mean by "a mashup", then I guess all secondary literature is.
As for the site, asmartbear is no stranger to these parts, and Jason's posts are well-regarded.
possibly my British grammar is stumping you, but yes, to read something you have to look at it.
This article might appear well researched here, but this is the hello-world equivalent on an art forum.
Maybe if Jason believes he has something meaningful to contribute to color theory, he should consider updating the Wikipedia page rather than promoting his own self interest by advertising his book & blog on HN.
It seems basic logic is stumping you: when A implies B, and B is true, it does not follow that A is true. You assert that you've looked at the article, and certainly one needs to look at the article to read it, but that doesn't imply that you've read it.
> this is the hello-world equivalent on an art forum
I fear you might be at the wrong place - Hacker News isn't an art forum.
Please note that anyone enthusiastic to learn and contribute is extremely welcome on the color-related Wikipedia articles; many of them are in a pretty sorry state.
I found it to be a well-written, well-researched introduction to some of the problems in color theory. If that's what you mean by "a mashup", then I guess all secondary literature is.
As for the site, asmartbear is no stranger to these parts, and Jason's posts are well-regarded.