That's a great use of crowdsourcing for your editing. I wonder how that could work in a more automated and scalable way. I'm thinking something similar to Etherpad, but with feedback rather than actual edits, like if people could leave comments and suggestions inline, with some kind of HN-style upvoting and troll-flagging. Then the originating author could cherrypick the best suggestions into being actual edits. Something like Wikipedia but more reader-friendly, without infinite levels of backwards revisions.
Or that could be stupid in practice, maybe a handful of close associates with honest feedback is way better than taking all comers.
I've actually considered this as a startup idea, except they would be actual news articles about local events or occurrences. Instead of interviewing witnesses to a local house fire or bank holdup the witnesses would just log on and add their witness accounts to articles, and people could attach pictures and videos as well (hey, everyone has a camera phone these days). Of course everything (articles, witness accounts, pictures and videos, etc) would all be user moderated and up or down modded, so if someone posts an account that seems less then verifiable then it could get downmodded. The user base would also act as editor, so people can suggest spelling/grammatical changes and other users can up or down mod specific changes.
It would require an enormously involved user base but imagine getting news reports directly from the people seeing it happen.
