(1) it would be easier to encourage "Shared Authorship". Generally, people don't bother that much giving back changes, and I don't want everyone to meddle with my sources. No amount of source control would change that. (2) To many holes for rigging, and I find long term popularity works quite well. "How many peple bother to vote" is a good measure.
What I'd like to see: Maybe allowing the author to open up the article for editing to "Contributors". (Currently, you have only "authors" at the same level) A "Sandbox submit" where the article doesn't go live yet, but can be reached through an URL, and edited by the wizard. The full update cycle requires a lot of preparation to get through the wizard - allowing incremental updating before the article goes life would make publishing much easier. Extending that to an "Update Sandbox", where you can update an article incrementally and review it before it goes life would even be better - and a valuable tool for shared authoring. Contributors might be allowed to edit the sandbox, and the author can say "that's ok, publish!" But I can find many problems with all that, too.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist
