What is rather worse is the truly malicious users. Can
anyone really claim that inserting child abuse allegations
into [[Wikipedia]] is merely a "less helpful" edit?
I wouldn't call it vandalism is either. On a scale of from 1 to 10 of
helpfulness, vandalism might be a -1, but such things probably start at
-3 and can get rapidly worse. Even the worst vandalism to a page
probably can't do much damage to wikipedia's reputation before someone
fixes it. But when people eventually find out that libel has been
sitting in full view for months...
I think it is not too unreasonable to suppose that
has made enemies, and will continue to make enemies; nor to
allow that these people may be disruptive in ways more
significant than the average page-blanker.
As happened at de, with deliberate copyvios.
Incidentally, I have frequently noticed people making changes to
statistics like city populations, incrementing them by small amounts. I
have no idea if this is this as-yet-unnamed type of unhelpful edit or
someone with access to more recent stats. I try not to let it stop me