Larry gets his 28 minutes of the treatment with which we are all so familiar. If the page stats are any indication, only about 5 people saw the page in this state without reverting it.

Look on the bright side; we just found out Jimbo's IP.

Not everyone who reads a vandalized article knows how to revert it, and not everyone who reads an article with vandalism in the third or fourth paragraph makes it that far before closing the page or clicking on a hyperlink. But your point stands.

Make that number three I've seen tonight. First one was this, second was this, and this is the third. Wikipedia is really embarassing themselves.

Gosh, if only a certain Huggle user hadn't gotten his rollback revoked and wasn't banned for sock puppetry, I bet this would have never happened. In fact, all of Wikipedia's problems would be solved by now. But, no it can't be, one can dream though.

Well, the sooner people stop throwing the term "abuse" around like it still assumes good faith, the better.

The problem isn't that Wikipedia needs more vandalism patrollers. The problem is that Wikipedia needs to prevent the vandalism from breaching articles in the first place.