If your question is "what is the best way to organize a workplace," well, there are a ton of answers. But it's been repeatedly demonstrated that trying to do it based on some kind of 'merit' system leads to gaming the system, and does not actually reflect any sort of 'merit' whatsoever, while the 'fact' that the system is based on merit is used to reinforce those at the top of the pile at the expense of those at the bottom.
Should we have a coding test during the phone interview? No, because that sounds like we're making decisions based on some concept of merit.
Should we have the candidate write some code on a whiteboard or a laptop? No, because that sounds like we're making decisions based on some concept of merit.
Should we have the candidate take home a problem and spend a couple of hours on it? No, because that sounds like we're making decisions based on some concept of merit.
Should we promote people who inspire their coworkers, take on extra responsibilities, and get more things done? No, because that sounds like we're making decisions based on some concept of merit.
Companies are going to continue to hire, fire, and promote based on something. Every workplace is going to have some concept of what is merit, what is valued there. Better that it be explicit and understood.
In this book the term had distinctly negative connotations as Young questioned both the legitimacy of the selection process used to become a member of this elite and the outcomes of being ruled by such a narrowly defined group.
You could argue that successful startups (as well as other successful companies in any category) do something similar with their selection processes (aside from the fact they they do not have or exercise political power). Colloquially, the term "meritocracy" has come to imply "organization with clear and rigorous standards that hires, promotes, and fires based on such standards".
Maybe it's not a perfect word, but there seems to be some general consensus about what it means and what people are aiming at. Perhaps it's better for an organization to be more humble and to strive to be a meritocracy, even if it knows it can't do it perfectly.
If you don't have some concept of "merit" - based on job-specific skill, communication with others, emotional regulation, self-discipline, general effectiveness - how can you staff a company at all?
[1] I assumed you meant https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7406566
----
edit:
(based on clarified response in child post - thanks @steveklabnik )
I don't really see much distinction between the intention of "we try to hire good people" and "we objectively determine who the best people are", aside from the humility in the first statement and the hubris in the second one. If there were a process to objectively determine 'merit' for some company and job, people would be all over it. And 'merit' is obviously conditioned on the particular tasks to be done, the culture of the workplace, and a pile of other factors.
Bottom line - to be overly hubristic is not good. But striving to define your company's concept of merit is not a bad thing - it can only help in making better decisions in hiring and promotion.
That measurements of merit are flawed is another problem. Does that mean you should never try to determine anybodies skills? What else besides completely random hiring would be possible?
Obviously, you want to hire the best people you can. There is a significant difference between "we try to hire good people" and "we objectively determine who the best people are."
And furthermore, there's a huuuuge difference etween "we try to hire good people" and "the people who currently occupy a particular place in the social sphere are there purely because of merit, and those who do not sit in places of power are there because they do not have merit." See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7406566
And I severely doubt for example GitHub put the carpet there to justify that they didn't hire some people ("see, we didn't hire you because you were not good enough, ktx bye"). They seem to be more driven by idealism, which would speak for the "we try to hire good people" interpretation.
I suppose they might also refer to open source in general. Again, what other criteria than merit would work in open source? Should sub-par merge requests be accepted out of a sense of fairness?
Sorry, I am really trying to understand...
Btw that carpet article claims women are being kept out of the tech meritocracy. I just want to note that these women probably have perfectly fine other jobs (for example in medicine, law, journalism, whatnot). So they are not really being kept stupid and un-elite.
(Edit: I meant this article http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug#awesm... and this quote: "The tech industry isn’t still predominantly white and male because white men are better at their jobs than everyone else, it’s because many white men have had more opportunities to succeed than their minority and female counterparts." which seems unfounded to me).
Reading the article you linked to (not the carpet article), I have to say one of my criticisms of democracy is also that it exploits the stronger members of society. I guess some middle ground has to be found, but it doesn't seem just to me to demand that people who contribute the most should also be made to pay the most. The issue of incentives is also there (why perform if it only generates more demands?).