Frequently Asked Questions
Everything you need to know about edithistory.wiki and Wikipedia edit data.
What is edithistory.wiki?
edithistory.wiki is a free tool for inspecting a retrieved window of recent Wikipedia revisions. It links that window back to Wikipedia's source history and makes the coverage limits visible. It is not a replacement for the complete source history.
Is this affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation?
No. edithistory.wiki is an independent project and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to the Wikimedia Foundation in any way. We use Wikipedia's public API to fetch revision metadata, which is freely available and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0.
What is the activity signal?
The activity signal (0–10) is a derived summary based on the edit-volume data available to the site. It is not a measurement of disagreement, accuracy, editor motive, or an edit war. Use it only as a prompt to inspect the linked source revisions.
What is an edit war?
An edit war is repeated undoing between editors. Wikipedia has policies about it, including the three-revert rule. A revision list alone does not prove an edit war or explain its cause; inspect the linked revisions and relevant talk-page discussion before drawing a conclusion.
How far back does the edit history go?
We fetch up to 500 of the most recent revisions for any article. Wikipedia articles can have revision histories stretching back to the early 2000s, so for very active articles the 500-revision window may only cover a few months. For less-edited articles, 500 revisions can span years. The timeline chart reflects whichever window of data we retrieved.
How is data cached? Is it real-time?
A report may use cached data so the site does not repeatedly query Wikipedia. The report labels its retrieval time, and Wikipedia's source history remains the authoritative place to check the newest revisions.
What do the article quality ratings mean?
Wikipedia has its own quality assessment scale for articles. "Featured Article" (FA) is the highest rating, awarded to articles that are comprehensive, well-sourced, and well-written. "Good Article" (GA) is the second tier. Below that are A-Class, B-Class, C-Class, Start-Class, and Stub. These ratings are assigned by Wikipedia editors and reflect the article's depth, sourcing, and prose quality — not neutrality or accuracy.
Who are the top editors shown for an article?
The top editors list shows the Wikipedia usernames (or IP addresses for anonymous edits) that have made the most revisions to the article within the revision window we fetched. A high edit count from a single user can indicate either a dedicated expert contributor or, in contested articles, an editor engaged in an edit war.
What do the pageview charts show?
Pageview data comes from the Wikimedia Analytics Pageviews API and covers the available recent monthly period. It can show when readership changed, but it does not show why readership or editing changed.
Can I use this data for research or journalism?
Yes. All data displayed on edithistory.wiki originates from Wikipedia's public API and is freely available. The underlying revision data belongs to Wikipedia's contributors and is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. If you publish work based on data from this site, we recommend citing the original Wikipedia API as your source. edithistory.wiki itself is an independent analytical tool and is not a citable primary source.
Does the site work for non-English Wikipedia articles?
Currently edithistory.wiki is optimised for English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org). Support for other language editions of Wikipedia is something we may add in the future.
Is edithistory.wiki free?
Yes, completely free to use. The site is supported by non-intrusive display advertising. We do not require registration, email addresses, or any personal information to use any feature of the site.
How do I interpret the edit timeline chart?
The timeline chart counts revisions in the retrieved window by month. A peak shows more recorded revision activity in that period; it does not establish a cause, a dispute, or a change in the article's accuracy.
Why might an activity signal look surprising?
It is a limited derived signal, not an editorial judgment. It can reflect the size and age of a page as well as the revision data available to the site. Treat it as a starting point for the source comparison, not a verdict.