If we're defining it to be inclusive, then yes; by that, I mean inclusive of combat sports, fighting methods, military combatives, self-defense courses, etc.
By maintaining a broad scope, we're:
- Contributing to the continued growth of the site.
- Covering a greater spectrum of topics which may provide better support of narrower questions.
- Making clear the scope of the site without exclusion or prejudice, but with every attempt to help those seeking quality answers to genuine questions related specifically to martial arts.
I may personally find point-sparring, Dillman's no-touch knockouts, and Ashida Kim reprehensible in my own opinion, but this does not negate their part in the overall world of martial arts.
Does this mean that we should be completely open and decide on a case by case basis? Not necessarily. We can agree that things like WWE are better suited to other sites (perhaps acting), or that XMA (for instance, I'm not saying this is a must) is dance and not martial arts, and explicitly exclude them. I think that, however, getting into the same petty debates that have ripped apart other Q&A sites (like combat sport vs. self-defense legitimacy as martial arts) is definitely to be avoided.