Do we want reputation incentives for summarising submissions?

Question

This is a refined version of this meta post to take Dilaton's objections into account.

Now that the first phase of the reviews section is up (blog post), I think it is time to bring up the issue of encouraging users to summarise papers, i.e. discuss it's physics. This is a purely voluntary thing to do, of course.

But my question here is, "Do we want reputation-based incentives for summarising papers by editing submissions on PhysicsOverflow?".

If the answer is a yes, we need to discuss the number of quality edits to submissions or number of significant (or majority-forming) contributions to submission summaries needed to qualify for this reward, and the amount of reputation offered by this award. Or maybe we could decide the reward amount by voting (like 1 vote on nomination = 10 rep) but that makes us vulnerable to politics... And once we're done with it, we'll need to discuss if we're going to keep this idea of rep-based incentives to just editing submissions, or anything else (like editing tag wikis).