I don't think this will work. The idea to label submissions as 'work in progress' is of course very good; it would be helpful to have a distinction between submissions waiting to be reviewed, and those waiting for revision by the author.
But if we want to expand the circle of people that could approve articles, it would be better to just appoint a few more people we trust as editors.
An alternative would be to allow anyone (or any two) to vote for approval of a submission, but that this vote then would need validation by an editor. This editor then would only have to approve the person as trustworthy, without having to look at the submisison itself. If someone without any publications or longstanding Comments history would suddenly pop out of nowhere to approve something, the editor would typically not validate that vote.
As implemetation it would onle be needed to have the site register the votes. In fact the 'favorites' system that we already have could serve that perpose: favotiting an unpublished submission can be taken as a vote for its publication. What would be helpful to editors is to see in the unpublished list how many times the submission was favored. If this was more than a threshold, he could just open the page, look who favored it, decide if that is a trustworthy crowd, and publish it without further consideration.
I think it is good that there is some limit to the rate at which people can publish. If someone has hundreds of ideas, it in general means he is not critical enough about his own ideas. As Pritchard said: "it only takes 10 seconds to invent a new chess variant, and unfortunately some people do!". It seems extra important to have editors scrutinizing such serial publications, and allowing these to pass poorly reviewed seems the worst of ideas...
I don't think this will work. The idea to label submissions as 'work in progress' is of course very good; it would be helpful to have a distinction between submissions waiting to be reviewed, and those waiting for revision by the author.
But if we want to expand the circle of people that could approve articles, it would be better to just appoint a few more people we trust as editors.
An alternative would be to allow anyone (or any two) to vote for approval of a submission, but that this vote then would need validation by an editor. This editor then would only have to approve the person as trustworthy, without having to look at the submisison itself. If someone without any publications or longstanding Comments history would suddenly pop out of nowhere to approve something, the editor would typically not validate that vote.
As implemetation it would onle be needed to have the site register the votes. In fact the 'favorites' system that we already have could serve that perpose: favotiting an unpublished submission can be taken as a vote for its publication. What would be helpful to editors is to see in the unpublished list how many times the submission was favored. If this was more than a threshold, he could just open the page, look who favored it, decide if that is a trustworthy crowd, and publish it without further consideration.
I think it is good that there is some limit to the rate at which people can publish. If someone has hundreds of ideas, it in general means he is not critical enough about his own ideas. As Pritchard said: "it only takes 10 seconds to invent a new chess variant, and unfortunately some people do!". It seems extra important to have editors scrutinizing such serial publications, and allowing these to pass poorly reviewed seems the worst of ideas...