Content deleted Content added
→Who has worked on the page: small c/e |
→Individual edits in the edit history: Match up with current version of glossary |
||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 3:
==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.
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, ''
==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.
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
==
* [[mw:Extension:RevisionSlider|RevisionSlider]]
[[Category:Wikipedia how-to|Read article history]]
| |||