I like this part of the observation: that it's easier to suggest a new place to go or a new tool, than to suggest a change to existing wiki-cultural aproaches.
But I think the communities are looking for significant changes or findings here, so we're free to say "if you aren't working this way, try it, that's our conclusion" and provided it's viable they might.
However (and I think this is your point)... the more you tell people "kill that old approach and do this" instead of the softer and easier "start moving this direction", the more you risk an outright rejection by significant numbers.
In other words, it has to be a path that's got a good chance of people following it, otherwise it's pointless. So our optimum result might be categorized somewhat openly as the best path that has a good chance of enough people following it to make the necessary difference.
Human nature, variety of views, and inertia, will ultimately limit what we can achieve in any given "bite" at the quality cherry. Best to respect there are limits on the achievable (although not giving in lightly), and see what's the most we can progress quality for this time.