Charles Matthews wrote:
I think that goes too far. I would argue that, yes, we have had to find a replacement for the editorial processes applied by EB and (for example) Nupedia.
But wasn't the wiki process supposed to be the editorial process?
What we have not done is to prescribe these in advance of launching the project: we have allowed matters to develop their own way
But I think it is fair to say that there is resistance to changing the current status quo such that it could be argued that further evolution is unwelcome. For way of example, a fairly recent discussion suggested [[WP:PLOT]] lacked the consensus required to remain a policy. However, a handful of editors refused attempts to remove it. This doesn't support the view that matters are allowed to develop, but rather supports the view that there are gate keepers. Incidentally, I've been informed on three policy pages recently that gate keepers are actually part of the wiki process, and that our policies should have established gate keepers as they will best understand which changes will be in keeping with the general thrust of the policy they undertake to gate keep.
But the complaint that there is some sort of editorial process, and that submissions should still be on a "no one needs to read the instructions" basis (no drafting, in particular), is a basic misunderstanding.
I don't think it is, I really do not. I think there is a basic misunderstanding on both sides of the argument, because there are people out there crafting policies or arguing that there should be gate keepers and that there actually does exist some sort of editorial process. Many established editors have or have a belief that they operate as a part of that process, and that their opinion is actually definitive.