Is the ultimate source of policy still what experienced editors do, or do the written rules matter more?
Sometimes the practice of experienced editors diverges from the written advice. This discrepancy between the written rules and experienced editors' individual actions concerns some editors. In such cases, should the written rules be updated to match the actual behavior, or should editors be told to conform with the written rules? For example:
A notability guideline may set a specific standard, but experienced editors may vote more leniently (or more strictly) at WP:AFD.
The written rules neither encourage nor discourage using citation templates or adding inline citations to the lead of an article, but individual editors do both of these things with far more frequency than they did 10 years ago.
"Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge. As a rule, the more accepted knowledge Wikipedia can encapsulate, the better it is."
Do we still believe this?
What does "ready for the mainspace" mean? How different is that from "page is about a notable subject and doesn't qualify for speedy deletion"?
Has the change in news media invalidated our ideas about sourcing?
When an organization issues a statement (i.e., self-publishes a press release, but under a fancier name), and the media ignores it, how do we determine whether that organization's views are worth mentioning?
An editor writes an article, believing it to be an appropriate subject for Wikipedia. Someone nominates it for deletion. In the WP:AFD discussion, some editors disagree about which notability standard applies (e.g., WP:GNG vs WP:ORG).
If one says GNG and three say SNG, should the closing admin usually go with whichever position is noticeably more popular, and apply the SNG standard?
Or should the closing admin treat all of the responses as being equally "policy-based"?
