If it's technically feasible to do community editing of articles, why don't we encourage that? It's actually a pretty deep question about how you think about research distillation.
It's tempting to see distillation as putting a layer of polish on ideas -- something that people can just jump into and do. But I think it's much more about deeply internally digesting ideas, perhaps with a few collaborators, and putting it together into a framework of thinking.
For that, you want a small number of people with a strong vision and a deep investment in the article. If other people have a different vision, they can write a different article.
(My impression is that wikipedia works very well for getting lots of facts onto a page, but does a much more mediocre job of distilling ideas.)