This question's comment thread presents a particularly pungent view of the subjectivity conflict. Various people trying as best they can to support the words in the FAQ, and Juliet sneering at them and calling them the 'wiki police'.
We've got some people who hate the 'Missouri compromise' of community wiki because they don't think there should be any subjective questions, others who hate it because they think there should be aleph-null subjective questions, and the rest of the community, including the new users, stuck in the crossfire.
Jeff Atwood's silence on this subject is somewhat eloquent, and I interpret it as standing off and allowing the community to sort this out.
I do not see the community moving toward a consensus here. Or, if I were as pessimistic as Mr. Butterfield, I'd see a movement in the direction of ever more ever more subjective questions, as the insurgents inexorably build rep. If that's what he wants, ok, I wish he'd just take the anti-subjective language out of the faq altogether.
Guilty as charged of tilting at a windmill. I try to hold it down to once every few weeks.
I don't claim that this question, from a content standpoint, is a particularly clear example of a good question or a bad question. It's an example of the jerky name calling that infests the subject.
In case anyone doesn't get the reference, I'm referring to the (ab)use of cwiki as gray area for some somewhat subjective questions as 'the Missouri compromise.'
I see a better display name for myself....
The trilogy is founded, in some respects, on 'don't be a jerk.' My view is that this dispute, in which even the diamond mods disagree, creates a stress that causes more 'jerk' and 'near-jerk' behavior.