[WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting

[Surreptitiousness]

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.