tl;dr, down-vote this all you want, but merely clicking arrows with zero explanation polarizes the conversation.
As best as I can make out, the arguments on this site for the acronym question are:
The initial question that precipitated everything, which comes across as fairly neutral, just saying that Bicycles.SE has something like it:
Inspired by this meta question, where acceptable abbreviations are discussed, and the existence of this reference on bicycles.SE, I thought: would it make sense to create a similar CW question where to put reference to common terms used/accepted around the site?
Olin then followed up and made the post, hilarity ensued, and now it's locked while a post by W5VO makes a couple more points, all of which I have a rather tepid reaction to:
- Centralized "repository" of jargon, abbreviations, and acronyms.
- Allows users to assess whether a given acronym is common or not.
- Each individual post can be linked to in Questions/Answers/Comments.
- There are entries for items that do not have tags and/or tag wikis (60+)
I argue they are all weak points, but this post is not meant to articulate the negative POV but to draw out the pro-argument. Other support on the site seems to be people arguing over implementation details about what votes should mean, how we can maintain 200+ answers with Perl scripts, which all seem to miss the big picture.
There are some well-written (and less-so) posts that make the negative argument, but what are the positive arguments that provide a strong rationale (not "other sites do it too", but why is it intrinsically a Good Thing) as to why this question (and those sure to follow) should remain? Looking at the up- and down-vote counts on posts that extol one side or another is not a very convincing "argument".