QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 25th November 2009, 2:10pm)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 25th November 2009, 1:56pm)
The 'community' has absolutely no interest in developing such a structure. The only way such a structure will ever be erected is if it (or at least its precursor) is put in place by fiat, and the only entities with the power to possibly pull that off are the Foundation, Jimmy Wales, and the ArbCom.
...at which point, the current somewhat-debatable trend towards a reduction in the number of active WP editors will probably become a stampede for the exits. That would be a good thing, of course, but the fact that the system is ungovernable (and therefore institutionally irresponsible) is one of its main attractions for most of the current community members.
Indeed, and I believe Jimmy and the Foundation both know it, which is why they both act to obstruct and delay changes that might impact "participation". It's very clear that Jimmy and the WMF view participation as one of the most important metrics of performance for Wikipedia, and are very unwilling to do anything that might compromise participation. I don't have a good theory as to why they think participation is such a key metric, though.
Online intentional communities have always had to pay a lot of attention to participation: too little and you don't hold people's attention; too much and you get overwhelmed and lose your focus. It's obvious to me, at least, that Wikipedia's community is way overshot and needs to contract for its own health. Most online intentional communities, however, do not survive their initial post-overshoot contraction; they tend to contract below the point of ongoing viability. The trick to survival (which very few communities manage) is to resist the urge to get caught up in the exuberance of the initial expansion and to start layering in organizational structures and controls as the community expands. If Wikipedia survives, it will be because it finds the sweet spot during its contraction to introduce just the right amount of community structure to enable the remaining community to effectively organize and redirect its efforts to halt the contraction and resume effective, meaningful, targeted recruitment of the people they need.
QUOTE
Still, you have to wonder - if they did that, would the existing community slowly be replaced by people who understand the need for such things as editorial standards (beyond simplistic notions of "notability") and effective governance structures...? IMO probably not, but it would make the whole thing less objectionable.
The odds are against them, but it's not out of the question. It mostly depends on whether a competent leader arises within the community or not.