The offending edit
lasted for 12 days.
I thought Wikipedia vandalisms were "almost always" reverted "very quickly"?
In January, the Henrik-o-Meter says that the Tom Utley article was getting 5 or 6 page views per day. Maybe it was only 3 or 4 per day, back when Wikipedia was less popular in July 2007.
Still, that's easily 30 or more visitors who saw the nonsense, versus the one reader who actually did something to correct it.
This seems to be a trend that I'm establishing with these stories about vandalism. We frequently see 20 to 50 people walk idly past a vandalism without "sofixit"ing it. Why?
IT'S NOT THEIR PROBLEM. IT'S NOT THEIR ARTICLE. IT'S NOT THEIR ENCYCLOPEDIA.
Wikipedia: The World's Most Irresponsible Encyclopedia.
Seriously, do Wikipediots think this is a "good" ratio of damaged views-to-corrective actions? To me, 40 to 1, or even 20 to 1, are not statistics to be proud of, considering it's purported to be a self-correcting reference.