Like Salon or Slate, only, ideally, ANYONE could publish.  Articles go
in to categories, and readers can "log on" to the site, and rate
articles they like and don't like.  These ratings go in a database so
that after awhile, the Magazine can determine which articles are most
popular, and which articles are most likely to be enjoyed by any
particular user, based on the commonalities with other users, the user's
regard for the author, the category of story, etc.

Articles could be ranked something like score * age decay, in a base
case.

MONEY?

So, the Magazine nags you from time to time, and if you feel like it you
can dig in and put some money down.  The Magazine takes a cut, and the
rest is divided among the user's favorite authors.  As an incentive to
subscribe, popular authors could opt to make certain articles
subscriber-only, and the threshhold criterion could be "what is the
user's current average monthly contribution?"

This means that users would opt to renew their membership on a monthly,
quarterly, annual basis, or whatever.  They pay their subscription up
front, and their "score" in this regard is their monthly contribution.
A user could pay something cheap like .50 / month, but an article might
give subscriber-only access at a $2 / month threshhold.

In this way, the author and the reader dance a delicate tango in
determining value-for-content.

An author could, of course, review appeals from less financially-edowed
readers, and allow certai users through without meeting a specific
threshhold.  The ability of authors and readerrs to communicate with
each other is really important.