Sorry about that previous message, I hit the wrong button in my email
program.
I can agree with most of the material. Some remarks, though:
"In some cases the Wikipedia community itself cannot agree on whether
an edit constitutes vandalism or not. In fact there is a vandalism-tracking
page where users discuss and coordinate responses to specific instances
of vandalism."
This makes it seem that the vandalism tracking page is for a large part
to discuss what is and what is not vandalism; it is not. Of the five types
of vandalism mentioned below, I would remove the fifth type - it would not
be considered vandalism, it is a different issue.
"On the other hand, there is also the possibility that a newcomer is someone
who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards." - the word 'standards'
could easily be read wrong here, but I cannot find a good different one
either.
Regarding the 'first-mover advantage', I would like to put forward the
possibility that it is not the fact of being first, but the size of the
edit that makes these 'invulnerable' - if someone adds one or two lines to
an article, someone else may well come along and decide those can be
improved, but if someone adds 3 or 4 paragraphs, others will not as readily
edit them if there happen to be one or two lines they want to do something
about - if they even go so far as to read the whole edit.
Another issue could be that the first edit often will provide the 'core' of
the page, the first two paragraphs or so that give a general overview of
the subject. Later edits then add various sub-subjects. Someone who wants
to add something, will either add a new sub-subject or add it to the applicable
existing one. This would mean that this 'core' is a relatively stable part
of the page.
As a final, but for us most important point: Could you ask for the software
they developed to be made available to Wikipedia? It might be very useful
to check some Wikipedia pages using this software. For example, one could
use it to spot where articles have had major changes, enabling one to check
whether anything has been inadvertedly lost in such a major overhaul.
Andre Engels