To the first point, I understand all of that. What I'm proposing is that anyone submitting a news article to the site be equipped with guidelines fully detailing just how these news articles must be done, with the warning that no articles that fail to adhere to these guidelines would be selected. I'm not suggesting that users copy-paste news articles and submit that. I'm suggesting that more passionate users would go to this terminal, submit a news article that adheres to the guidelines, and then have these editors sort through that. I'm definitely not trying to imply that writing a news article doesn't take time and effort, I just think that it would be much easier to have news posted in a more timely manner if it were done this way. Maybe I'm just an idealist, but I have faith that, when presented with a clear set of rules and guidelines, most of the content submitted will be of a high quality.
To the point about editors, maybe editors was a poor choice of word. They are primerily curators. They are meant to be a middle-man between the users and you. Their primery job would be to select good articles in the first place. Their job is to read through the articles, select the first one of a high quality that adhere to the rules and guidelines effectively, edit that, and then submit the curated articles to you for the more rudementary edit. Again, I'm not trying to say that anyone isn't doing their job correctly, but I understand why the writing staff can't feasibly be awake 24/7 to write an article on every single piece of breaking news as it happens when they are freelance, and I think it's clear to most of us that many of the news articles written here are done one after the other in quick succession as a means of catching up with what was missed for the day. This is just a proposition to alleviate that. The idea is that if 20 members each submit one good article as soon as it breaks, each of those articles will be posted faster than the way it's being done now and there will be less articles to make up for at the end of the day.
To the third point, that is my biggest concern. Like I said, I can only speak for myself here. My idea came from how active the Game DB was, and specifically how Trucks (this is Will, right?) said that the reason this was so successful was because users would rush to post and update game information on their favorite games/games they were interested in as soon as it came out. My thought process was pretty much the same for this. The articles submitted would therefore come from a user's want to post news about a game they're excited for or a console they have an affinity for, but as for the longevity of such a system, I don't know. I do think that it should award badges and Gamrpoints as an incentive, but again, I'm basing much of the potential success of such a system on heresay from the days of the Game DB.
And to the final point, I also don't know. I didn't really consider that the approved editors might not actually be active in doing the job they applied for, so that would obviously be an issue. The three-tier system I outlined would help alleviate some of that workload, as well as the guidelines for the writers, but I really don't have a concrete answer for that, as it would really depend on everyone doing what they're supposed to. Again, ideally the mod approved editor-curators would pick the articles they need to do the least work editing, edit that, and then submit those to you or any other "real" editors for final approval. But as for how reasonable of work that would be, I can't say.
Trucks = http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/5918/truckosaurus/
Trunks = Will = http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/11871/trunkswd/ = guy who does most of the news.
The GameDB was fairly active, yeah, and when a major new game was announced there usually was a rush to be the first to get it added. It really was a great system because most of the content was easy to add even if you knew little-to-no English, it kept major entries' info up-to-date which saved staff time (for example nowadays Will and I have to check upcoming release dates every week because almost no one actively adds that data anymore), and we had some great admins/curators who'd work through the submissions accepting/rejecting them.
I do think articles is a different beast though. I like the idea in theory - because more articles submitted by more people is a good thing and the current system is very flawed - but either hardly any would be accepted because too many mistakes were made (like I said, even current writing staff often forget a bunch of the guidelines and I have to edit them to correct them) or the curators/editors would end up having to make significant edits and the job would be quite an undteraking.
Maybe it could work - if we had plenty of people wanting to be curators and to submit news. I'm honestly not sure about this one, whereas I really am convinced of the need to redesign the front page now, so if we were to have Trucks take on a big project I'd rather it was that or fixing the actual database.