I agree with your idea about reducing the burdens of those "on patrol"
against petty vandalism.
How about some sort of marking or system, whereby you can set the "Looks
Good To Me" flag on a particular edit (or on a particular article
version, which is not _quite_ the same thing).
I personally would not bother re-checking any anon edit which mav had
already looked at and marked okay. If mav says okay, it's good enough
Contrariwise, users could mark an edit (or article version) with:
* a "Huh?" flag (I don't understand what the contributor is saying)
* a "Bias" flag (Looks like unattributed POV masquerading as _fact_)
* a "Copy Edits needed" flag (too many spelling or grammar errors for
Note that this would not be a voting system. Nothing automatic would
happen to edits, versions, or contributors based on their "score".
But it would give other editors the chance to use filters to see (or
avoid seeing) classes of articles needing (or unworthy of) their
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed