As of December 2013, what's the status of the ongoing debate between deletionists and inclusionists on English Wikipedia?

That debate ended around 2006-7, the deletionists won, the inclusionists left, and then the deletionists, true to their name, deleted everything they could. After that fiasco, they took over the ArbCom, and booted out anyone who was writing anything.

The deletionist debate was then replaced by the "loose citation" "strict citation" split. This was whether claims needed to be individually cited sentence by sentence or whether you can write an original text so long as the claims are reasonably accurate when examined in light of all the sources together, evaluated critically as a whole. The strict citationists won that debate, so you can't write anything useful anymore.

This is most harmful when there are ab-initio arguments which can be followed by anyone versed in the field, but which are not found verbatim in sources. This is a common situation in mathematics and physics, where new proofs have no source, but are clearly and obviously uncontestable, as they are equivalent to existing stuff that is well accepted. The strict citationists now can prevent new articles from getting written, but thankfully they are too stupid to read mathematical sources to even verify whether the claim and the source agree, so you can snow them easily and get them out of your hair for a while, at least if you fill up a page with equations.

The politics on that site is abominable, you can't do anything useful anymore. Anything you write gets a stream of "citation required" tags and then it gets deleted, no matter how supportable. Providing citations doesn't help with politically resisted stuff, or even with just surprising sounding but well accepted stuff, because the talk pages are not allowed to debate the topic, just the claims of sources about the topic, and the decision is ultimately entirely political, based on numbers for and against. Because of this, the people there have evolved a power structure which has absolutely no regard for accuracy.

ArbCom is supposed to resolve these disputes, but ArbCom does not feel competent to judge technical accuracy. So they judge politically, they suspend those in the minority, without reviewing the literature at all. This creates a Soviet-style nightmare, and I recommend Wikipedia editing for any young socialist so that they understand the issues fully.

This means you have to wait for a project where the organizers DO accept the responsibility to judge accuracy, and do so in as objective a manner as they can. The articles at Wikipedia on controversial topics or politically sensitive topics are a scandal. If you examine "black war", you will see a great example--- the page has a nonsense pseudohistorical Australian narrative due to Windschuttle, which is neither mainstream nor correct, and it is easily contestable with sourced primary and secondary material, and any attempt to correct this is gang-reverted to the nonsense that is there now.

The notion that Wikipedians adopt one or the other philosophy is inaccurate and misleading. In the words of a veteran Wikipedian known as Aboutmovies: