[cxr]

> Those sound like proposed solutions

Yes.

> not the underlying concerns

The stated concern embedded in the first example is "anyone would be able to edit the wiki".

> Motivating concerns here might be things like "our wiki will be full of inaccurate info", "people will unknowingly install spyware".

Right. That's the point. The concern that "anyone would be able to edit the wiki" is not a valid concern. The concern that "our wiki will be full of inaccurate info [if just allow anyone to edit it]" has to be determined through empiricism. Avoiding locking down the wiki and seeing whether it fills up with junk will reveal whether the concern was valid. It's possible that it's an invalid concern and therefore requires no solution.

[alecbz]

I don't think this means "most concerns aren't valid", it's more "people aren't always good at vocalizing their underlying concerns, and instead treat a proposed solution as the concern".

[cxr]

Your distinction between stated concerns and underlying concerns is a red herring.

If their underlying concern is "our wiki will be full of inaccurate info because the wiki is open", and if that's empirically shown that opening the wiki doesn't produce a wiki full of inaccurate info, then it's an invalid concern. Neither it (the "underlying concern") nor the stated concern are valid.

[alecbz]

There's no need to tack on "because the wiki is open". That's still just part of a solution seeping into the statement of the problem.

[cxr]

You're not engaging with the premise. There is no problem involving a wiki that is full of junk and that locking it down is a way to solve that. The concern is that it would be filled with junk if flipped from closed to open.