Interesting read. I'd be interested to know what they considered vandalism. Certainly the kind of stuff my bot reverts is pretty obvious, I don't know if it counted subtle vandalism or a good page getting edited in good faith, but into a crappy state. Also, were the articles selected at random or high profile/biographies?
I would say that from my experience and random page clicking, .47-.5 % sounds about right for random articles being blatantly vandalized.
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:04:19 +0100
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Only 0.0037% internet users arrive to a vandalised article
> Seems that http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/news_details.php?release=071105_3621&page=NS is meant. The full pdf-paper is linked there.
> Greetings from Berlin,
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > Datum: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:13:35 +0100
> > Von: Platonides <email@example.com>
> > An: Wikimedia Quality Discussions <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Betreff: [Wikiquality-l] Only 0.0037% internet users arrive to a vandalised article
> > The following brief was published yesterday on 20minutes
> > (www.20minutos.es) free newspaper at Spain in Spanish.
> > I can send you the original if you want.
> > The numbers are quite interesting. Does anyone know more about that study?
> Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
> Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
> Wikiquality-l mailing list
The best games are on Xbox 360. Click here for a special offer on an Xbox 360 Console. Get it now!