Single Comment

Because having only a few editors does not scale well to having several eager contributors, I am thinking of changes I can make to the submission system that would allow for unlimited works in progress and a peer review process that could lead to publication without waiting for an editor to approve of a page.

I'm thinking of allowing submissions in multiple stages.

1. Member-contributed page would begin as works in progress. A work in progress would not be listed on the page for unreviewed submissions, changes to it would not generate notifications, and it could be seen only by the author and the editors. Works in progress could remain unlimited unless they started to take up too much memory. Perhaps I would also automatically delete revisions older than the last one, which would keep memory use down at the time when authors are most likely to be making multiple revisions.
2. When an author decides that a page is ready for review, he would submit it for approval. This would move it from being a work in progress to being a submission. As such, all members would now be able to read it. Submissions would remain limited in number like they are now. Also, editors and authors could revert a submission back to being a work in progress.
3. A submission could be approved for publication by either an editor approving it or by multiple members voting to approve it. Votes from contributors would count for two, votes from other members would count as one, and three would be required. (As a precaution against the same person using multiple accounts, voters would have to have different IP addresses from each other and the author.) On acquiring the required number of votes, a script could publish it and leave a notification for editors to check that nothing is amiss. Once published, a page would be viewable and searchable by anyone.