While the PDF is more detailed (thanks for the link), as you note, it is not substantively different from the previously linked write-up, in that only “mass deletions”–an obvious and relatively insignficant form of vandalism–are considered. That link adds more detail, but not really any new perspective. I’m not sure how that contradicts anything I wrote.

You mentioned “two papers” “apart from the IBM site”, but you only linked to one. Was there a second link you had in mind?

Also, regarding “statements mostly in non-wikimedia owned newspapers”, four of my eleven examples were from Wikipedia itself, not least of which the heavily scrutinized http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ITAAW.

One can be found at http://web.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf

It is slightly different to the IBM web site you have linked to.

You might want to grep for “The site is subject to frequent vandalism and inaccuracy, just as skeptics might suspect—but the active Wikipedia community rapidly and
effectively repairs most damage. Indeed, one type of malicious edit we examined is typically repaired within two minutes. ”

You might want to update your posting including a line with “I am still right since the paper is not talking about all kinds of vandalism” or similar.

The paper itself you were not referring to until now is well linked from wikipedia on several places.

So far, it seems that you didn’t do at least a minimal amount of research. Discussing the IBM paper would reveal substancial differences between most “IBM researchers found out”-statements mostly in non-wikimedia owned newspapers and the actual context of their sentences. Missing that chance is telling more about this series of misconceptions than it is telling about the amount and severity of vandalism.