[cogitoergofutuo]

> It's about writing encyclopedia articles in a way that's best for their readers.

This sentence contains a load-bearing “best”. The Wikipedia editor’s contention is that they have established the canonical “best”, and it is that contention that is being scrutinized.

[dataflow]

"Best for readers" is not particularly subjective here. We're talking about an encyclopedia whose audience is the entire English-speaking population. Its #1 job is to communicate relevant information on each topic clearly and accurately to the broadest audience in each language - not to match anyone's preferred terminology, write Shakespearean prose, or push the boundaries of the language. We already have multiple words that are perfectly well-suited for use with the intended meaning - we don't even have that luxury with so many other words. Deliberately picking a word that confuses some readers and annoys others just introduces problems and friction where there don't need to be any.

[cogitoergofutuo]

> "Best for readers" is not particularly subjective here.

This is correct. It is exactly the same amount of subjective as the word “best” normally holds. Since there has never been a reproducible measure of best-ness in any objective sense of anything linguistic, it’s squarely in the territory of subjectivity.

If by “best” you mean “understandable to virtually all readers” then “comprised of” and “composed of” are equally “best”

If best-ness is measured by something other than usefulness, then the person that decides the new set of weights with which to weigh best-ness is performing a personal and subjective act. “Orthodoxy to a standard of English as cited by me in context of the year x” does not automatically qualify something for extra best-ness points.

I will gladly entertain the issue of “comprised of” somehow lacking in accuracy with a person that is genuinely confused by its inclusion in a sentence.