This is a personal user essay written by Persian Poet Gal. It does not intend to represent all the views of the Wikipedia community. This is merely her thoughts on why the following subject is for a lack of a better word: "silly" and ways to help correct it. Some parts of the essay may reflect more light-heartedly and others more seriously. Read the other disclaimer at the bottom if you require more clarification.
Why ... is Silly!
A series by 
Essay topic: Vandalism
What exactly is vandalism?
To those who are new to Wikipedia and are wondering what exactly is vandalism on this site; well it's very simple. Vandalizing this site is when a person replaces content with gibberish, deliberately introduces hoax information into an article, blanks an an entire page, or creates a new page filled with patent nonsense. The page you are viewing right now may be riddled with vandalism. Why, at any moment, thousands upon thousands are lovingly inserting "poop" in the article about Sir Isaac Newton or someone is creating an elaborate article about the fascinating BOOGA YIPPA. Oooh the humanity, the turmoil, is all LOST?!
Calm down, of course not. Its good to also understand that Wikipedia also actively cleans up vandalism. Why at any moment, thousands upon thousands just reverted many of those numerous vandal edits.
Why vandalism is silly!
The following passage will be unnecessarily broken down into subsections to indicate every part of its silliness in its entirety.
The short duration it lasts...
Vandalism is silly because the supposed "brilliant prose" written by the vandalizers will most likely never last. Whether it is in the next 15 seconds, 1 minute, following week, or even months from now...chances are the wiki-page will soon be visited and restored to its more proper form. Which is why this section is, interestingly enough, the shortest.
The effect it has on your Wikipedia experience...
I doubt many enjoy the thrill of getting their new editing accounts blocked within the next hour or day of editing Wikipedia. Such editors deny themselves the opportunity to be the authors of their most favorite subjects. How would you like the feeling of knowing that you have penned a certain section or entire article that millions of people around the world read and reference to? How would you like the feeling of trying to redefine the way the world receives information? Some may like it, some may not. It certainly gains a lot more benefit then being known solely for moving Adam to Adam likes graavvy on WHEELS! some number of times and having their edits shortly removed. This community itself also recognizes editors in ways that are somewhat gratifying. Sometimes as simple as bestowing a good editor a well-deserved barnstar (award) or nominating dedicated users for adminship are some of the ways that this shows.
The unnecessary need to cause virtual hatred...
Vandalizing to be a troll has to be one of the silliest reasons of vandalism. Trying to ruin someone's day by vandalizing their userpage or leaving a barrage of silly messages on their talk page is in effect redundant. That user will eventually log on and revert your virtual venting. I doubt that someone will easily be crushed by seeing "U SUCK" typed in big bold letters on their page when they just arrived after a fairly good day. Some users even treat userpage vandalism with apathy and go on to continue their editing with the following attitudes (WP:COOL/WP:DGAF/WP:CLARK GABLE'S LOVELY LINE). Now I cannot be very philosophical about this one and all I can say is; go punch a pillow. It works wonders!
The lack of a point it makes...
Vandalism to make a point about Wikipedia's errors or inaccuracies is silly because countless of its 6,823,467 articles are not Featured Articles. Wikipedia knows that it lacks information as well as accurate information and that is why it demands more editing every day (and it will take a long time before this random article you are about to click on will reach an Encyclopædia Britannica level). To think that one can claim an article as a soapbox about such issues is redundant because even serious Wikipedia editors are never allowed ownership of articles.
There are much more constructive methods to communicate your point both on and off Wikipedia. Policy talk pages are vital to constructing the encyclopedia and using them is a great way to point out what Wikipedia needs to work on. Granted, a long paragraph rant on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion about your deleted article BOOGA YIPPA will probably be removed, however; if you present a valid reason about an error in the WP:CSD policy then you will more likely spawn beneficial discussion. Another constructive effort are off-wiki blogs. Even Wikipedia’s own co-founders have blogs which critique Wikipedia’s day-to-day workings. With blogs you have no limitations for you to state your opinion and you may hack at the issues anyway you desire.
In closing
In closing, I will say it again, vandalism is silly. Whether you walk away feeling this essay benefited you or it was a complete waste of time, remember what the disclaimers say above/below. Was this suppose to be therapeutic or backwards psychology, no. It was my feelings on why it was silly and what can be done to help it, period. Do I expect this essay to change the world, no. Do I expect this essay to change Wikipedia, no. Do I expect this essay to fix the problem of vandalism, no. So woop-di-do! I thank you for reading the following piece or at least this paragraph if you skipped down or even for simply clicking the link to this page.
The following text is released under public domain of the GFSL license (GNU Free Silliness License) and may lack comedic talent. It is the reader's understanding that when they click the link to this page that it is in fact dull, boring, and poorly written. Persian Poet Gal admits to being a ham and sometimes likes to mock herself. She instates that it is too bad if you think it is stupid to do so. The author knows she is referring to herself in the third person now and quite enjoys it. You will receive a free cat if you also agree that you like cats just as the author does. Anybody who believes the following giveaway is then just as silly as Persian Poet Gal and will not receive a cat. But then this introduces a double negative because you may have agreed to liking cats and the original sentence said you would get a cat. Can you figure out where this small text disclaimer is going at this point? Neither can I. Oops, the author realized that she broke her third-person-only references and will not do so again. You would think by now that this is the end of this redundant bottom disclaimer but it is not. This however is the end.