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

Revision as of 18:49, 17 October 2016

Latest revision as of 15:40, 6 July 2024

(34 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Information page|H:READHIST|Help:READHIST|WP:READHIST}}

This page on '''how to read an article history''' is intended as an aid to people who are [[Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia|researching with Wikipedia]]. Experienced Wikipedians often glean a great deal about articles from looking at the [[Help:Page history|page history]] and following up to the individual edits that make up that history. This page describes some of these tricks of the trade. The suggestions here apply mostly to substantive articles with a number of contributors. If the page history indicates that the page is entirely or almost entirely the work of one person, you are dealing with a situation more comparable to evaluating an article on someone's private web site.

==Who has worked on the page==

First and foremost, the page history tells you something about who has worked on the page, and allows you to examine the successive versions of the article and the differences between them. Usually by looking through the edit history, you can quickly tell who has made substantive contributions to the article.

If an edit was made by a registered user, you can follow up to their [[Wikipedia:User page|user page]] to see who they are (or at least who they claim to be.). Associated with each user page is an accompanying user talk page, which often gives the flavor of their interactions with other users: is it full of thank you notes or vitriolic arguments? There is also their [[m:Help:User contributions|user contributions]] page, which lets you look at all the work this particular person has done in Wikipedia, including their side of online discussions with other users.

If the edit was made by a user who was not logged in, you can at least get a look at the other contributions made using the same [[IP address]], which are often, but not always, made by the same user. (Many Internet service providers issue temporary IP addresses to their users from a pool of addresses: when the user disconnects, the address is returned to the pool for allocation to someone else.) Also, it might be a fixed IP address for a computer in a public place such as a library or school; computers in such public settings can show an extreme combination of excellent edits and vandalism, but you still might be able to see that the particular edit came in the midst of a series of edits that help you gauge the character of who was at that machine at that time.

==Individual edits in the edit history==

Each edit in the article history will contain two links (''(currcur)'' and ''(lastprev)''), 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 ''(currcur)'' will compare the version in question with the current version, while clicking ''(lastprev)'' 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) (lastprev) 13:36, January 27, 2006, Mik ''(No *rational* arguments in Talk yet,)''

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

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

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

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

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

# (cur) (lastprev) 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.

Line 37:

==Article stability==

One very good measure of article stability is to compare a version from a month or two ago to the current version. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's comparison tool sometimes fails to line up the correct paragraphs with one another, and articles that have had little more than spaces removed can seem at first glance to have massive changes. Hence, while this tool maycan quickly confirm that an article has ''not'' had major changes, but where it appears at first glance to show major changes, you will need to follow up carefully to see whether this is, indeed, the case.

==External linksSee also ==

* [[mw:Extension:RevisionSlider|RevisionSlider]]

*[http://wikidashboard.parc.com/ WikiDashboard] - a social dynamic analysis tool for Wikipedia

[[Category:Wikipedia how-to|ArticleRead article history]]

[[Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers|How to read an article history]]

[[Category:Wikipedia page history help]]