Help:How to read an article history: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:35, 3 September 2022

Latest revision as of 15:40, 6 July 2024

(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 10:

==Individual edits in the edit history==

Each edit in the article history will contain two links (''(cur)'' and ''(prev)''), the edit date, the editor, and sometimes an edit summary. Sometimes, there will also be an '''m''' to designate that a particular edit was [[Help:Minor edit|only minor]]. Clicking ''(cur)'' will compare the version in question with the current version, while clicking ''(prev)'' will compare that version with its previous version. The edit summaries will sometimes assist in explaining the purpose of or the actions within the edit. However, this is optional. Sometimes Wikipedians will often use shorthand to explain their edits. For example, ''npov'' and ''pov'' mean ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point-of-view|neutral point-of-view]]'' and ''point-of-view'', respectively, ''cpce'' means ''[[copy editing]]'', and ''rv'' and ''rvv'' both meanmeans ''revert''. See [[Wikipedia:Glossary]] for a much longer list of Wikipedia shorthand.

==Identifying vandalism==

Line 24:

One can usually determine rapidly from the page history if an article is, or has been, the subject of an [[WP:Edit war|edit war]]. In an edit war, two users (or sometimes two groups of users) are editing alternately; if you "diff" between successive versions of one side's edits, the article is repeatedly restored to more or less the same state; and examination of the difference between successive indicates that this is not simply one or more solid contributors fighting off vandalism. Usually, one can quickly tell from the edit summaries that there has been a genuine disagreement over content. For example:

# (cur) (prev) 13:36, January 27, 2006, Mik ''(No *rational* arguments in Talk yet,)''

# (cur) (prev) 13:30, January 27, 2006, Reb ''(revert to consensus first paragraph for now)''

# (cur) (prev) 13:03, January 27, 2006, Mik ''(Reb's POV removed; neutral-tone version restored.)''

# (cur) (prev) 11:55, January 27, 2006, Reb ''(revert pov pushing)''

# (cur) (prev) 11:29, January 27, 2006, Mik ''(See Talk. Alternate source of Resolution linked.)''

# (cur) (prev) 10:10, January 27, 2006, Reb ''(remove misleading 2nd paragraph)''

# (cur) (prev) 04:03, January 27, 2006, Mik ''(the coup)''

In a case like this, if these are the latest edits, a researcher will almost certainly want to examine both versions. There is clearly a thread of argument over something substantive.