Is there anyone that has done any research on how the number of visitors
relates to the article quality? I believe it is related somehow but I'm
not sure how it can be modeled. It works by counting the visitors that
reads a particular segment of the article, and then will accept the
particular segment as correct when a sufficient number of visitors has
been visiting. It can work together with a system for writer grading,
were this system will change the grade from whatever the writer has.
Compared to this a "stable versions" is like having a visitor with
ultimate power to mark the revision as good. This system does not give
the visitors such ultimate power, and in fact will not give give them
more than a small fraction of the power necessary to claim the revision
is free of vandalism. Combined I guess it is possible to make a system
that will be better than anyone of them alone.
Any real vandalism will most likely never be marked as good, because the
limit can be set so high that it will be found by someone long before it
is marked as "patrolled", and then most likely nothing or very little of
the revision will survive so the revision itself will never be marked as
patrolled. If a known good writer contributes a revision, then it will
get a flying start and it will need few visitors ("anonymous
patrollers") before it is marked as "good". If the writer is unknown the
revision will need a lot of visitors before it is marked as good.
Even very seldom read articles have several visitors each week, and
through a year this will add up to a considerable amount of visitors.
John