So, once upon a time, the fashion was to post comments that threatened a question with closure if not marked community wiki. That fashion seems to have been discouraged in the interests of lowering the jerk quotient. For me, at least, this leaves a question of the best alternative from the following:
- post a polite comment suggesting community wiki.
- vote to close as 'subjective and argumentative'
What seems interesting to me is that at 3K I got permission to vote to close, which is rather strong medicine. Perhaps a fourth alternative here would be to extend the 3K voting system to include 'vote to cwiki'? If 5 people feel that a question is too fluffy to deserve rep, maybe that should be sufficient?
OK, I see, using the expression 'too fluffy for rep' presupposed a particular view which is not generally held. Let me try again...
I observe a set of questions that do not have anything like a single, right answer. Some end up closed. Some end up cwiki. I'm not really at all clear on the grounds that distinguish.
Here is a concrete example. "What is the best ..." -- by definition, that's going to be subjective and argumentative. It might also be educational and informative. Is it fluffy? Not so much as 'tell me the best web framework,' but much more so than a really concrete 'how-to' question.
Here is another example. Subjective as the day is long, but a respectable request for shared experience with a common programming problem. And it's got upvotes. Someone is confused here, and I'd be happy to learn that it's me.
By far, the simplest thing to do, as a non-mod, is to vote to close these as 'subjective, argumentative' or 'not a real question.' Evidence suggests that close votes attract moderator attention. This leaves the 'keep as cwiki versus close' question for the mods.
Anyway, I'm very interested in what other folks are using for criteria.