This recent question has just been converted into a community wiki (CW): When (if ever) is a frequentist approach substantively better than a Bayesian?
I understand that the idea behind converting questions into CW is that they are rather opinion-based (but not enough to be closed as opinion-based) and invite many answers as opposed to one definite answer. But I do not understand where is the border here.
E.g. these two very related questions: Who Are The Bayesians? and When are Bayesian methods preferable to Frequentist? -- are not CW (even though List of situations where a Bayesian approach is simpler... is).
I have the feeling that we are not being very consistent.
This recent question comes to mind: Approximate $e$ using Monte Carlo Simulation -- and it is not CW either, even though there are already several suggestions in the answers and one can imagine more answers appearing with various suggestions. As another example, we have plenty of non-CW How to explain something to a layperson? questions with lots of good answers.
So: What are the criteria to make questions CW according to our current policy?
Having asked that, I should say that I find CW very unhelpful because it does not allow to gain rep. I do not see why the frequentist-vs-bayesian question should be CW and I would prefer that everybody would gain reputation from answers there. (Personally, I have started to draft an answer to this question earlier today but now I feel much less inclined to continue.)
Should we consider relaxing our criteria?
I would also like to point out that on some other SE websites (e.g. on academia.SE) having lots of opinion-based answers is considered okay, and such questions are not converted to CW. So it seems that our policy is not a general SE-wide rule, but a result of our own choice.