I really don't know how feasible this coding would be, particularly if we're keeping Wizzley's code as stream-lined as possible. If it would take a lot, then kill it with fire.
I was thinking about working together with another author on an article. That's been done before on Wizzley, but one of the authors gets sole custody of the article. What I'm proposing splits it in two.
Say that me and Kathleen join together to write an article on Wiccan art. We produce some pretty content, picture there, me waffling about the religious significance, and Kathleen telling us what the lines and colours all symbolize. Nice and useful for our readers.
That article would sit simultaneously in both mine and Kathleen's personal profiles, but only once in the Wiccan sub-category (and popular, buzzing etc, if it reached those). It would only be listed once in the SERPs. The accreditation, wherever its found, would say 'by Kathleen Duffy and Jo Harrington.'
30% of the time it would be my ads
30% it would be Kathleen's
30% it would be Wizzley's
10% it would alternate between my referee and Kathleen's (or Wizzley gets a bonus round, if there is no referral).
This could only be done with people who'd written 100+ article. It would be another incentive for people to push on to 100; and when you get there, it's another reward for unlocking the level.
It would hopefully produce some unique content with real depth. In the example given, I could write a Wiccan art one, but without any real knowledge of art. Kathleen could write the same, but without knowledge of Wicca. Collaborations allow two lots of expertise to come together to create fully informed articles, which enhances the value for readers.
Things could be created which are not anywhere else on the internet. Individual authors would need a great breadth of knowledge to come up with such topic combinations. Most of us stick to what we know.
(Another example, Steve and I collaborate on an article about the Munich Air Disaster in 1958. I can tell the history - big tragedy; ice; dead footballers. But that would be given greater meaning if Steve explains precisely what football lost that day. To me, it's remove one bloke in shorts and replace with another one. Steve would fill the blanks by describing the sheer genius at kicking balls that was Duncan Edwards, and why his loss was actually profound to more than his mother.)
For the authors, there is the potential for attracting a whole new group of readers. In our first example, Kathleen's writing would be showcased before the Pagan community. If we decided to place our Wiccan Art collaboration in the Art sub-category instead, then I'd have the opportunity to find new readers amongst the art-lovers. In our second, historians get to meet Steve; sport readers get to find out about me.