Unfortunately, no. Just my own experience. I'm not sure if there are any meaningful statistics that include information about trivial/non-trivial contributions ratio. There are of course lots of big, non-trivial edits by anonymous users, but I just wanted to point out that lots of changes can be checked for vandalism rather fast just by looking at the diff page.

You only read it and use it as a reference? So why are you against this system that lets you link to articles that are guaranteed to not include any obivous vandalism? You even can still read and link the newest version that is not yet checked for vandalism, if you want. I don't see your problem.

That's because the Sighted Versions system in the German Wikipedia is only used to verify that edits don't include obvious vandalism ("Bob's mohter is gay!!eleven"). You don't need any expertise to identify such obvious vandalism. Checking the accuarcy of those the newly added facts is done the same way it was done before this system was implemented (watchlists, wikiprojects, casual readers/editors, etc..)

And many edits by anonymous users are just corrections of typos, linkfixes, layout changes, etc.. those can be checked in a glance and flagged as "sighted". And edits by users with the sighter status (older than 60 days, more than 300 edits, clean block log) are flagged as "sighted" automatically. At the moment, there are about 5800 users with this status.

Saxon... handheld devices... Sounds like a masterplan. What are they going to do next? Shoot some satellites into orbit and start an earth-wide mobilephone satellite network?

Huh? Do you hear that sound? Kinda sounds like drums!?

A ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff?