Politics & ideology
Capitalism
The mix of footnotes changed; no single large rewrite stood out.
Something to inspect — not a judgment of bias or bad faith.
Overview
Use this briefing to choose what to inspect. The tabs contain the underlying comparisons.
Open the live English Wikipedia article ↗No current rewrite result is available for this article. This is missing coverage, not a finding that no rewrite occurred.
Different websites cited: 46 → 4. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 5.8 years old or newer. 31.7% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 65.7% of what is there now (authorship is more spread out; 520 different accounts overall). Snapshot data on this page runs through 2021-01-01.This is background only — a small group of writers is common on specialist pages.
Available evidence: Citations, Versions.
Not available in this export: Rewrite, Vocabulary, Framing, Facts. Missing coverage is not a negative finding.
Rewrite analysis is not available
No current rewrite result is available for this article. This is missing coverage, not a finding that no rewrite occurred.
Persistence-weighted changeThe share of wording lost, weighted so text that survived more snapshots counts more. by interval
Each row reports established wording lost, standing wording gained, and paired change as a replacement lead. The bar shows loss for continuity with earlier reports. Below-floor anomalies remain descriptive evidence but cannot receive exact confirmation. A coverage gap is shown descriptively but excluded from detector decisions. Candidate-window labels report the exact revision-level decision for the broader window containing that interval.
How the detector reached this state
- 1 · Coarse scanA snapshot comparison that finds candidate windows for closer inspection.Candidate signal foundThe coarse scan found a deletion-heavy window worth exact checking.
- 2 · Interval scoring12 intervals scoredThe bars below show persistence-weighted wording loss for each interval.
- 3 · Exact checkA revision-level test of whether a candidate window's durable spine collapsed.UnavailableNo current revision-level decision can be published.
- 2003-01-01Loss 23.7%84 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2004-01-01Loss 15.2%727 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2005-01-01Loss 12.3%1,285 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2006-01-01Loss 71.7%14,310 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2007-01-01Loss 96.2%22,597 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2008-01-01Loss 6.2%781 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-01-01Loss 80.7%22,009 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-01-01Loss 8.4%4,158 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-01-01Loss 6.1%5,437 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-01-01Loss 6.1%7,830 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-01-01Loss 8.3%14,169 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-01-01Loss 2.5%5,170 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
How the footnotes changed
How the article's own footnotes changed across the rewrite: which websites and books were cited more or less. We only show the mix — we do not rate sources as good or bad.
Looking at rev 60614567 → rev 60618403 (exact confirmation, 2006-06-26 → 2006-06-26): 4 websites were cited more (or newly), 45 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 8 → 34. Different websites: 46 → 4.
Mix of citation types: — → —.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| marxists.org | 1 → 2 |
| bartleby.com | 0 → 1 |
| encarta.msn.com | 0 → 1 |
| concise.britannica.com | 0 → 1 |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| freetheworld.com | 3 → 0 |
| heritage.org | 2 → 0 |
| libcom.org | 2 → 0 |
| mises.org | 2 → 0 |
| mwhodges.home.att.net | 2 → 0 |
| business.timesonline.co.uk | 2 → 0 |
| econlib.org | 2 → 0 |
| nefer-seba.net | 1 → 0 |
| globalpolitician.com | 1 → 0 |
| economics.about.com | 1 → 0 |
| capitalism.org | 1 → 0 |
| hoover.org | 1 → 0 |
Counted from the article’s own footnotes. We list domains only — we do not call any source trustworthy or untrustworthy.
How the footnotes changed
How the article's own footnotes changed across the rewrite: which websites and books were cited more or less. We only show the mix — we do not rate sources as good or bad.
Looking at rev 195572556 → rev 195604092 (exact confirmation, 2008-03-03 → 2008-03-03): 0 websites were cited more (or newly), 24 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 86 → 0. Different websites: 24 → 0.
Mix of citation types: book 63%, web 28%, journal 9% → —.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| none in top list | |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| marxists.org | 5 → 0 |
| ernestmandel.org | 2 → 0 |
| historycooperative.org | 1 → 0 |
| taemag.com | 1 → 0 |
| minneapolisfed.org | 1 → 0 |
| humanities.mq.edu.au | 1 → 0 |
| foreignaffairs.org | 1 → 0 |
| proutworld.org | 1 → 0 |
| capitalism.org | 1 → 0 |
| www10.nytimes.com | 1 → 0 |
| prout.org | 1 → 0 |
| imf.org | 1 → 0 |
Counted from the article’s own footnotes. We list domains only — we do not call any source trustworthy or untrustworthy.
Versions we used
These are the exact public Wikipedia versions behind the checks on this page. Open any link to read the original. Wikidata item: Q6206.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| de | saved | Kapitalismus | open version 269351388 | 2026-08-03T18:14:26Z | 100,912 |
| fr | saved | Capitalisme | open version 237658643 | 2026-07-08T13:29:23Z | 72,002 |
| en | saved | Capitalism | open version 1367549037 | 2026-08-03T19:37:08Z | 63,281 |