I agree with wedrifid in saying:

The material on the wiki (I assumed) was to be summarised from prominent and uncontroversial blog posts that are already referenced to from time to time.

That is, the workflow should not be "idea for wiki page --> write post --> discussion --> write wiki page", but, independently of each other, both "idea for posting --> write post" and "notice something generally accepted on LW without a wiki page --> write wiki page".

Having to first write content as a post, wait for discussion to resolve, then transfer it to the wiki is a fairly major inconvenience if improving the wiki was the original goal, so we should not require people to do that.

This depends on what "improving the wiki" means. If the wiki is treated as a summary of the blog content and community canon (as it was intended, and as it is actually currently shaped), then adding content that is not on the blog doesn't serve this purpose, and doesn't constitute an improvement. Also, any good content should be posted to LW anyway.

The wiki is content-poor enough that we ought to remove all trivial inconveniences in the way of producing content for it.

Since the reason Eliezer imposed or proposed the inconvenience is to improve article quality, do you maintain that the wiki is content-poor enough that we ought to not worry about the quality of contributions to the wiki?

Wiki and blog/dscussion software are very different media, with different strengths and weaknesses: this has been understood since Ward Cunningham's WikiWiki, with its differing workflows for "document mode" and "discussion mode". IMHO, having software replicate all wikidiffs here as "discussion posts" would be unhelpful and confusing.

It is more useful to keep the option of "starting a discussion about a wiki edit" as a means of escalating a content dispute, as wedrifid has implicitly done here.

As for wedrifid's objections, I view them as superficially understandable, but ultimately unwarranted. Bernard Crick's work is standard in political science and is used by many introductory courses in the field. Referencing him on politics poses no more risk to epistemic hygiene than referencing Kahneman and Twersky on behavioral economics or Edwin Jaynes on Bayesian probability.

As it turns out, Crick's central reflections in IDOP, warning against any sort of "ideology" or "absolute-sounding ethic", directly address one-sided policy decisions, black-and-white thinking and ingroup/outgroup bias as leading sources of epistemic bias in politics. (From this POV his work closely parallels Michael Oakeshott's cautionary essays on "Rationalism in Politics", albeit from a rather different perspective.)

Somehow, wedrifid also objects to the "distorted" emphasis in the opening paragraph: Apparently, we don't fight over politics any more, but we used to fight over it in the ancestral environment, so our instincts are misled. But this is putting the cart before the horse: Fundamentally, politics is a means of (hopefully non-violent) conflict resolution and de-escalation, achieved through increasingly complicated strategies and institutions. When we are unable to solve a political conflict through non-violent means, we can and do fight over it, as the rulers of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen have been discovering recently. Wedrifid seems to hold to the Maoist/Machiavellian view of politics as something that "flows out of the barrel of a gun": might makes right, ethics and rights be damned. This view works correctly until it doesn't, and when it fails the costs can be severe.