Wikis also have auto patrolled rights.
The fundamental issue here is that modification of a well qualified / sourced statement should be extremely rare as facts rarely change. This is a level of granularity that Wikidata promises to make fundamental differences to how content grows and how editing on wikis is managed needs to reflect that.
> I guess the issue may be different for Wikipedia and Wikidata in that the size of the community to number of items/articles is very different.
That's correct, so flagged revisions wouldn't work on Wikidata, but we
need different approaches. I believe that the approach of locking single
statements against changes by anonymous / very new editors would be a
Federico Leva (Nemo):
> All the datasets I've seen imported on Wikidata have been improved
> significantly on the wiki. Of course, one has to live with the fact that
> the dataset will diverge.
You probably mean items by speaking of "datasets". Items will diverge
and be improved, no doubt. However, there are single statements (!) that
are proven to be correct (possibly in connection with qualifiers) and
are no subject to being changed in future. Locking these statements
would make them much less risky to obtain them and use them directly in
Wikipedia. What would be the disadvantage of this, given that slightly
experienced users can still edit them and the lock is only a protection
against anonymous vandalism?
Wikidata mailing list