Comment Re:20% with no false positives? (Score 1) 62
If the algorithm can detect 20% with perfection then that must constitute extremely low hanging fruit. That type of vandalism is just annoyance. It is so obvious that the end user readily recognizes it as such and can skip over it or revert the edit.
You have to consider that the people doing the vast majority of vandalism reversions aren't the end users, it's registered wikipedians who maintain articles as a hobby. Automatically reverting 20% of the vandalism means contributors have that much more time to spend verifying uncited claims in other articles.