Proposal talk:A Wikipedia of "Locked" Featured Articles

From Strategic Planning

This is the worst feature I have ever heard. Two wikipedias with the same view of the database is much better- one for inclusionists and the other for deletionists.

I really don't see two versions of Wikipedia as helpful. --15lsoucy 18:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of old FAs that aren't up to scratch and unregistered users can help greatly with their improvement. Jolly Janner 15:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the procedure would have to be worked out detail-wise, but other than that, this would be a great idea for getting Wikimedia added credibility 20:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


These shouldn't be merged. They are different solutions for a similar problem. --15lsoucy 01:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why lock?

The featured article is still there - all that needs to be done is to provide a link to the particular version. Maybe there could be some sort of page linking to approved, timestamped versions.

This way, it couldn't be edited without widespread consent. Otherwise, you have to go through the trouble of authorizing a revert to the original. --15lsoucy 01:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revisions

This already exists. It is called the "Flagged Revisions" extension. It is installed on English Wikinews. It allows people to be designated as "editors" and "reviewers". Both editors and reviews have the ability to "sight" an article. When an article is sighted, the latest sighted revision shows up to unregistered users by default. The unsighted revision(s) can still be accessed and edited, but the sighted revision can be thought of as being 'locked' in place. Newer revisions (including vandalism) can then be reviewed and reverted or accepted by editors and reviewers as needed. The urgency level of vandalism drops significantly, since only registered users would see the vandalism (anon IPs would have to click the "draft" tab in order to see the vandalism. Otherwise they'd just seen the latest sighted revision on the "stable" tab").

Implementing this extension on Wikipedia was reviewed an rejected by the Wikipedia community.

You can visit English Wikinews to see an example of how this works in practice. Gopher65talk 01:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should have read Gopher's remark first. Sounds like a good practice, but it needs to be fit in into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is much larger than Wikinews, and many topics on Wikipedia are too complicated to be judged by general reviewers. News is temporary, while many Wikipedia articles have far longer relevance.Daanschr 09:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the german wikipedia is being set up this way -- 22:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two versions of articles

Featured articles could have two versions. One version showing the content at the moment it became featured, this would be a locked article. This article could be the main article you see when you encounter the article. Another version would be the non-featured editable version of the article, which is up to date and still lives up to the open character of Wikipedia.Daanschr 09:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locking user pages

Creators of user pages should have the ability to lock their own page to prevent vandalism.

What then prevent's a person from making a spam page, and then "locking" it so it can't be deleted? 20:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt someone can make a featured article status spam page. --15lsoucy 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in reference to user pages, not featured articles I don't think any of the Wikimedia projects have "featured users". 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. You should tell that to the person who wrote that up there. I thought of Featured Articles. Not featured users. --15lsoucy 22:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For people who do not edit wikipedia pages, they probably will not notice. Editing should be done to articles which still need work, and those will not be locked. This idea is supposed to keep Featured Articles in their pristine state. It would only be edited with the consent of X number of editors. --15lsoucy 18:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion

I support the idea that deleting can make us loose important information that is getting deleted just because one doesn't agree for personal reasons, but locking would also deprive us from important edits too. Proposal:Add or redesign tab for original research would place the sandboxing in that tab, and make the article page more professional and clean. Malach