Honestly, if the intent were to be pedagogical in this specific regard (which is isn't), I would say that the example is unnecessarily terse (which is why you describe it as "weird").
That's where I'm getting the "neither here nor there" from. I have no axe to grind with Haskell, and indeed counseled the other poster to not be put off by what he (and I) mistakenly thought was a poorly done tutorial.
If I had submitted the article here I would probably have changed the title in an attempt to impart some of that context. The purpose of the article, though, is consistent, and the execution is reasonably thorough. My confusion about your reaction stems not from the assumption that the title perfectly encapsulates the intentions of the article—it doesn't—but from the fact that you apparently made no attempt to understand the original context of presentation, instead going on about it putting the cart before the horse and generally making all sorts of (incorrect) presumptions about the goals of the authors and its place in the community documentation generally.
I agree it's not merely a set of guidelines; I said it had a normative aspect, not that that captured the entirety of its purpose or content. It's a guide: the concept could be summarised as "Here's the way we write Haskell programs, we think these processes and tools are broadly speaking a good idea, and if you follow them you won't go too far wrong."
In other words, it's "How to write a maintainable Haskell program", not "How to write your first Haskell program", or "How to write a Haskell program simple enough not to need a build system or a test suite or revision control or be made publicly available to anyone". Yes, one can write a Haskell program in a single file and then compile it with `ghc --make myprogram`, but that's not a good idea if one's program is thousands of lines of code, depends on multiple libraries, exposes an API, and so on. It's not "neither here nor there"; it's definitely there, which is not where you expected it to be based on the title, but what do you expect from a totally decontextualised link on a news site?
* Decide that I'm stupid or a troll and ignore what I have to say.
* Think about the presentation and framing of said content. For instance, what impact would it have to lead with a box "if you're looking for Haskell tutorials, go here, this is a guide to the best practices for creating and maintaining Haskell projects" ?
I don't really care one way or another.
I do, however, think that the defensive mentality (and the presumption of malice or stupidity) on display is not generally a good one for communities who wish to attract people to them.