Steve Bennett wrote:
Hmm. I'm thinking of classic articles like GWB that have been "worked on" by thousands of contributors. Of course, some of those contributors "worked on" it by "contributing" "bush is GAY" etc.
One could ignore edits that have been reverted. Detecting reverts, in the strict sense of the word, is easy: all you need is a hash value for each revision.
Of course, this wouldn't be perfect. But it'd be as close to perfect as any automated system can be. And it _would_ skip most vandals.