But, OTH, if (and it's a big "IF"!) the notion in the OP has major merit (and the --votes indicate that some disagree, though one could wish they'd spell out their critiques), perhaps that would be worth it.

As to your thoughts on a "test," that seems to /me to have great merit... but merit which I fear would be offset by the extent to which it would discourage newcomers. We see many of them post on their first visit... because they can. So while "mess" is an indeed genteel characterization of some of those first-posts, many others reflect great care in their preparation.

Admittedly, that may be tantamount to saying their authors practiced at least the "little learning" you speak of, which, in turn, suggests to me (anyway) that they'd promptly pass the test which argues against the concern we share.

But, my bottom line still comes out against testing, not because of any problem with viewing testing as elitism, but because it might obstruct participation by new folks and drive them, instead, to some of the truly dreadful advice rendered elsewhere.

The problem is, the required changes in our attitudes is precisely what's missing in how we do things now. We already have the process in place, but we (meaning /me) are sometimes too lenient about what we'll approve. We could withhold approval, or we could consider the node without it.

You could be right about the testing - it may drive people away, who simply don't want to be bothered with an annoying hurdle. I don't have any great fondness for the idea. It was just a thought, and from what you say, it doesn't look like a particularly good one.