I still don't see a concrete explanation of how this would work. Instead, I see you tossing off possible solutions that don't pass even a basic test of feasibility.
Is bug tracker activity a sign of a good paper? Or a poor paper?
The use-case I objected to, from the original article, is:
> A dependency graph would tell us, at a click, which of the pillars of scientific theory are truly load-bearing. And it would tell us, at a click, which other ideas are likely to get swept away with the rubble of a particular theory. An academic publisher worth their salt would, for instance, not only be able to flag articles that have been retracted—that this is not currently standard practice is, again, inexcusable—but would be able to flag articles that depend in some meaningful way on the results of retracted work.
How would structuring it "something like Wikipedia" make this use-case more feasible? It seems instead like you are talking about a completely different topic.
Why do we need all things to indicate paper quality? A lot of bug tracker activity might be both a good or bad sign, but more important that's not relevant.
What one should aim for is improving research quality and productivity.
Perhaps instead of structuring the whole thing around papers, it should be something like Wikipedia and editing articles in it.