[grey-area]

Yes it could although the wikis don't contain the other alternative questions or the dialogue which make Q&A sessions involving several people who know the subject well useful for other readers. For many questions (particularly open ones) there are many answers, and no right answer for all circumstances, so there is no clear division between this question/answers and other longer more specific ones as to being opinion or fact - they're mostly a mix of both.

Because people will inevitably continually ask/answer these questions and many similar more specific and yet still open ones and see the resulting debate as useful on any QA site, it might be good to have a more structured way of moving them to an FAQ section on SO, without destroying all the ad-hoc relations and rewards that users have built up using your QA format (i.e. not turning them into a wiki, which doesn't really suit them and loses all the attribution, comments, discussion etc).

It feels a little draconian at present sometimes when useful answers are marked as 'trivial' or 'not constructive' when they clearly are constructive, but are constructive in a direction SO didn't anticipate.

[rhizome]

I have to wonder if the original plan was to leverage the question answering as a wiki generator, but if so they should put pointers on closed questions. I'm not sure whether I have a problem with how SO is conducting themselves, since it could simply be that they're opinionated about what constitutes valid content and aren't afraid to leave the other stuff to other sites. That is, I'm not sure Zawinsky's Law can be extended to GYOFB situations.