uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
Recent policy initiatives, such as the deletion of unsourced images and the restrictions on anonymous creation of articles, have been driven by legal, financial, and public relations concerns rather than anything that any contributors to the project have said.
I suspect that kind of policy initiative is simply more visible because it has to happen quickly. To take an example of an internally generated shift, consider the citing of sources. Two years ago, some editors would routinely not supply sources, and defend their practice; nowadays such edits risk being mass-reverted, and the editors' protests would be met with scorn by all.
It would be nice to have more internal leadership. I think part of the trick is to model after professional societies and trade unions, where most leadership positions are part-time on a volunteer basis. For instance, projects could elect lead editors, whose special role during their terms is to preside over discussion on issues, and then make an executive decision, thus eliminating the indecision arising from those 56%-44% votes (think of city naming conventions). A lead for user page policy could have saved a lot of userbox anguish by being on top of the practice from the beginning.
Stan