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