Proposal talk:Delete sighted versions

    From Strategic Planning

    I don't agree with this proposal. Sighting is important to keep QUALITY. It is important to decide whether wikipedia wnats to go for quantity or wants to create an encyclopedia that contains TRUSTABLE information. Being free is a good thing up to a point. Total freedom creates chaos, that's a thumb rule of the world. --Teemeah 20:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    Huh? I wouldnt saw ANY CHANGE. Also - there was information about free encyclopedia that anyone can edit - we have same - but not really. and we need quick edit options - ortography? gramatics? No, we must wait for a guy who can flag our version. -- 09:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC) (proposal creator)Reply[reply]


    Is this about citations? Do Wikipedias in languages other than English have less stringent requirements for citations? The question is a bit hard to understand. I respect the viewpoint that requiring citations makes a wiki less free. However, if we want articles to be internally consistent and not at the mercy of uninformed people, we must include citations, if only as a form of evidence for what we write. However, I think that people should be careful about removing uncited information. It may be easy to find a source if one simply uses Google. Ideally, an editor should try to provide a source for valuable information that lacks a citation, instead of simply deleting it. Gary2863 03:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    No. Not about citations, but about UNFREEING wikipedia! And this only works on 3 languages! Why this working there and not WORLDWIDE?! -- 09:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I do not understand what is meant by a sighted Wikipedia, and I do not understand what is meant by unfreeing Wikipedia. Gary2863 03:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    A Braille Wikipedia - why didn't I think of that! 04:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    This was a real FAIL. Or... if you want sell wikipedia in braille, what is must be preparing long time, but YOU will pay for it... This will not sell so good. -- 09:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    I don't see a reason to get back to the "no sighted revisions" status. At Polish Wikipedia, out of the 366 thousand articles with sighted revisions (58% of all entries), 961 do not have a sighted current revision. Unencyclopedic enttries would get deleted anyway, inappropriate information would get removed anyway, sighted revisions or not. Striving for quality, I think that this proposal lacks depth, basing on one Web article, especially in a situation when the proposal for introducing sighted revisions has been widely discussed by the community. Wpedzich 07:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    comments on

    Roftl - comment of 1 anonim (sic!) Hoax. Przykuta 11:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    comment on proposal

    Hey, I came across this proposal and although I would really like to believe that it's honest, I can't help to think of it as a joke or naive trolling attempt. This wiki is too difficult to find to make a proposal here instead of our national Wikipedia (judging by IP, author is Pole). We did not hear any complaints about review system recently, this case was settled up long ago - the only issues we have now are about more technical stuff, like auto-assigning reviewer status. Last thing is the comment on referenced by author - from what it says, the article was rejected due to lack of notability, not through sighted versions system. This proposal will never be accepted by our community. Dodek 12:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Same thoughts here, although I wanted to express it in a bit lighter language. Is there a speedy deletion template here somewhere? Wojciech Pędzich Talk 12:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    What does it mean?

    Sorry, I don't mean to annoy you, but I'm not a native English speaker, I have no idea what "sighted version" and "delete sighted version" mean.

    Can anyone tell me kindly?

    --Cosmia 15:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I'm an English speaker and I have no idea either. I think the proposer may have meant cited versions(?).--Occono 18:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was about the use of "Flagged Revisions" extension, see here: Wojciech Pędzich Talk 19:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Proposal rating

    Unfortunately there are only 3 parameters, priority, impact and feasibility. For proposals like this, we strongly need "harm" parameter.

    I am admin of ruwiki. While introducing FlaggedRevs, some users also said that sighting breaks freedom and so on. Now everybody in ruwiki realizes that FlaggedRevs is an important step to improve quality. And there is no threat for basic principles of wiki community. On the contrary, I think every large wiki, say more than 500K articles, needs this tool as soon as possible. Kv75 19:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Each proposal needs some supporting arguments. This have none.Carn 20:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Flagged Revisions

    Is something that every wiki should decide for themselves. The community will know best whether it helps them to fight vandalism, this should not be a decision from "above". --Hannes Röst 12:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I figured out what this is about and I don't like it

    This appears to be about a policy within certain Wikipedias in which users who are not logged in are shown different versions of articles than those who are in. "Sighted" pages are those which someone has checked for vandalism. See this link: [1]. I am opposed to this practice in the English Wikipedia. I think everyone should see the same Wikipedia, good or bad. I worry that a sighted Wikipedia will discourage new contributors. Gary2863 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[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 00:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]