Must Everything On This Wiki Be Extreme

There's always more than one way to do something. Having blind faith in anything, including the ExtremeWay, you will eventually be LeadUpTheGardenPath.

Is this applicable to itself?

Oh yes, very much so. If you ever hear anyone tell you that they know or understand the Tao, or are generally enlightened in any mystic fashion about taoism ... or, worse, that they are taoists, you might do well to keep your wallet in your pocket and beat a polite but undelayed retreat.

Everything on this wiki is not extreme, nor should it be. Those of us who think Extremely reserve the right to respond from that viewpoint. That's part of WikiNature.
XP is not being developed using blind faith, it is a thoughtful evolving approach to development with a focus on minimal methodology.
XP in fact continually builds upon experience. We measure our progress formally and informally, and adjust our practices in accord with that learning.
XP proponents have not claimed, and do not claim, that it is good for all contexts. LargeExtremeProgramming. --RonJeffries

Then let's invoke XP where it makes sense, and try to understand the other ideas for what they're worth. SpecializationIsForInsects.--PeterMerel

I could just say WikiIceberg as a reply to the question MustEverythingOnThisWikiBeExtreme, but I have been lurking for too long to get away with that.

After being immersed, (some would say submerged), in some very intense conversations about XP, I know there is something in XP that warrants exploration. But the beauty of WikiNature is that we can easily have MultipleConcurrentConversations? running through different WikiThreads?. Maybe we should fill in the WikiHotSpots page as a jumping off point to locate different important and current threads. Maybe we need a HotTopics? page instead where we nominate topics where we want and/or need more input. --PeteMcBreen