[Foundation-l] How much of Wikipedia is vandalized? 0.4% ofArticles

[Phil Nash]

Gregory Kohs wrote:
>> Riddle me this...
>>
>> Is the edit below vandalism?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&diff=255482597&oldid=255480884
>>
>> Did the edit take a page and make it worse?  Or, did it make the
>> page a "better available revision" than the version immediately
>> prior to it?

It wasn't vandalism, and wasn't labelled as such, merely a change of 
wording, and perhaps emphasis. In the case of dispute, it should have gone 
to the Talk page, but doesn't seem to have done so. Many editors undo and 
revert on the basis of felicity of language and emphasis, and unless it 
becomes an issue is an epiphenomenon of "the encyclopedia that anyone can 
edit". so I can't see how this is a good example of anything in particular.

>> Methinks the Wikipedia community has a long way to go in learning to
>> differentiate between a "better" encyclopedia and a "worse"
>> encyclopedia before we take the step to try to define vandalism.
>> Then, after we've done all that, there might be some remaining value
>> in trying to quantify vandalism, as we've defined it.

With multiplicitous interests being represented, all of them valid, and with 
very little general intersection, terms such as "better" and "worse" have 
little meaning, in my view, in that context. Nobody is qualified to make 
that assessment.

>> Until then, for God's sake, Sue Gardner, do not gleefully run off
>> publicizing that only 0.4% of Wikipedia's articles are vandalized.

Unless it is said that "a recent informal study has shown that...."; I don't 
think Robert claimed any rigorous validity for the work he did; but at least 
he's done it, and opened a debate.