Cross-domain
Climate change
3 confirmed rewrite episodes; the largest by persistence-weighted mass had a 87.4% durable-spine drop. Language openings emphasize different things.
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 ↗Largest by persistence-weighted mass: 87.4% durable-spine drop. See Rewrite for exact revision receipts.
Different websites cited: 139 → 133. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.
Did editors fight over it?
Editors spent a lot of energy undoing each other’s work (lots of reverts). A loud fight does not prove anyone is biased. About 26,791 recorded revisions in the measure.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 5.3 years old or newer. 30.6% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 70.5% of what is there now (a fairly small group of accounts wrote much of the current text; 502 different accounts overall). Snapshot data on this page runs through 2026-01-01.This is background only — a small group of writers is common on specialist pages.
Available evidence: Rewrite, Vocabulary, Citations, Framing, Facts, Versions.
3 confirmed rewrite episodeA bounded window in which established wording was substantially replaced.s
Events bounded by stable revisions where long-lived wording was substantially replaced.
Snapshot corpus through 2026-01-01 (revision 1330693782).
Candidates and exact outcomes
The detector scored 24 interval rows and sent 3 candidate windows to exact checking: 3 confirmed, 0 rejected. A candidate window can span multiple interval rows, so rows marked as candidates do not equal the rewrite episode count.
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 scoring24 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.3 rewrite episodes confirmedRevision-level checking found the required durable wording replacement.
- 2003-01-01Loss 45.9%, Gain 90.3%, Replacement lead 45.9%1,305 removed · 2,568 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2002-01-01 → 2008-01-01
- 2004-01-01Loss 47.4%, Gain 62.4%, Replacement lead 47.4%2,679 removed · 3,524 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2002-01-01 → 2008-01-01
- 2005-01-01Loss 40.3%, Gain 74.8%, Replacement lead 40.3%3,442 removed · 6,385 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2002-01-01 → 2008-01-01
- 2006-01-01Loss 81.1%, Gain 44.0%, Replacement lead 44.0%11,868 removed · 6,440 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2002-01-01 → 2008-01-01
- 2007-01-01Loss 36.2%, Gain 125.4%, Replacement lead 36.2%4,033 removed · 13,988 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2002-01-01 → 2008-01-01
- 2008-01-01Loss 73.4%, Gain 66.7%, Replacement lead 66.7%19,360 removed · 17,574 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2002-01-01 → 2008-01-01
- 2009-01-01Loss 12.8%, Gain 24.7%, Replacement lead 12.8%3,715 removed · 7,148 added PWRMeasured anomaly: exact check pending
- 2010-01-01Loss 42.1%, Gain 22.4%, Replacement lead 22.4%21,705 removed · 11,550 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2009-01-01 → 2012-01-01
- 2011-01-01Loss 36.8%, Gain 24.6%, Replacement lead 24.6%20,320 removed · 13,616 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2009-01-01 → 2012-01-01
- 2012-01-01Loss 26.9%, Gain 30.1%, Replacement lead 26.9%17,106 removed · 19,140 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2009-01-01 → 2012-01-01
- 2013-01-01Loss 11.3%, Gain 11.0%, Replacement lead 11.0%9,517 removed · 9,212 added PWRMeasured anomaly: exact check pending
- 2014-01-01Loss 13.7%, Gain 9.3%, Replacement lead 9.3%15,794 removed · 10,704 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-01-01Loss 11.7%, Gain 4.3%, Replacement lead 4.3%16,876 removed · 6,228 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-01-01Loss 9.1%, Gain 5.9%, Replacement lead 5.9%15,613 removed · 10,116 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-01-01Loss 3.7%, Gain 2.8%, Replacement lead 2.8%7,567 removed · 5,691 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-01-01Loss 6.1%, Gain 2.5%, Replacement lead 2.5%15,067 removed · 6,308 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-01-01Loss 26.0%, Gain 4.8%, Replacement lead 4.8%74,441 removed · 13,710 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2018-01-01 → 2022-01-01
- 2020-01-01Loss 68.4%, Gain 24.5%, Replacement lead 24.5%181,475 removed · 64,863 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2018-01-01 → 2022-01-01
- 2021-01-01Loss 47.4%, Gain 21.3%, Replacement lead 21.3%77,677 removed · 35,004 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2018-01-01 → 2022-01-01
- 2022-01-01Loss 15.6%, Gain 8.7%, Replacement lead 8.7%25,154 removed · 14,053 added PWRConfirmed candidate window: 2018-01-01 → 2022-01-01
- 2023-01-01Loss 6.4%, Gain 4.4%, Replacement lead 4.4%13,521 removed · 9,273 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-01-01Loss 3.1%, Gain 3.3%, Replacement lead 3.1%8,507 removed · 9,075 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-01-01Loss 13.4%, Gain 5.6%, Replacement lead 5.6%46,409 removed · 19,444 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-01-01Loss 1.3%, Gain 1.6%, Replacement lead 1.3%5,072 removed · 6,162 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
Exact candidate decisions
Every coarse lead and its revision-level decision, including rejected candidates. RedlinesA before-and-after view showing wording removed and added. compare the full candidate window.
| Candidate window | Exact outcome | Coarse signal |
|---|---|---|
| 2002-01-01 → 2008-01-01Redline unavailable | Confirmed: 99.2% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2002-04-05T07:24:15Z → 2002-04-05T08:04:42Z · 40 minutes | coarse interval · 81% persistence-weighted loss · 42,687 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
| 2009-01-01 → 2012-01-01View redline | Confirmed: 68.7% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2009-04-04T22:19:10Z → 2009-04-04T22:59:21Z · 40 minutes | coarse interval · 42% persistence-weighted loss · 59,131 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
| 2018-01-01 → 2022-01-01View redline | Confirmed: 87.4% durable-spine dropExact pair: 2018-05-12T14:00:31Z → 2018-05-15T00:34:18Z · 58.6 hours | coarse interval · 68% persistence-weighted loss · 358,747 PWR massThe absolute persistence-weighted amount of text lost. |
Exact-event attribution: revisions 840836880 → 841297450
1,817 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 0 surviving replacement tokens · EMsmile was associated with 100.0% of removals.
Exact-event attribution: revisions 281784264 → 281790842
26,857 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 0 surviving replacement tokens · Wiki User 68 was associated with 100.0% of removals.
Exact-event attribution: revisions 45496 → 45679
3,920 tokensOne tracked unit of text, usually a word or punctuation mark. removed · 0 surviving replacement tokens · Vicki Rosenzweig was associated with 100.0% of removals.
Attribution describes public revision-history associations and origin authorship. It does not establish bias, motive, or misconduct.
Which words grew or shrank?
Words that became more common or less common between the compared versions. Handy for noticing a shift in topic or tone — not a score of bias.
Comparing rev 45496 -> rev 45679 (exact confirmation). Rough word count: 1,600 → 1,601. Overall: small vocabulary change.
Used more afterward
- satellite5 → 6
Used less afterward
No standout down terms after filtering markup noise.
These are the standout words, not a full dictionary of the article. Boring markup words are filtered out. Treat this as a hint, not a conclusion.
Which words grew or shrank?
Words that became more common or less common between the compared versions. Handy for noticing a shift in topic or tone — not a score of bias.
Comparing rev 281784264 -> rev 281790842 (exact confirmation). Rough word count: 3,650 → 3,650. Overall: small vocabulary change.
Used more afterward
No standout up terms after filtering markup noise.
Used less afterward
No standout down terms after filtering markup noise.
These are the standout words, not a full dictionary of the article. Boring markup words are filtered out. Treat this as a hint, not a conclusion.
Which words grew or shrank?
Words that became more common or less common between the compared versions. Handy for noticing a shift in topic or tone — not a score of bias.
Comparing rev 840836880 -> rev 841297450 (exact confirmation). Rough word count: 5,441 → 5,409. Overall: small vocabulary change.
Used more afterward
No standout up terms after filtering markup noise.
Used less afterward
- findings2 → 1
- january2 → 1
- requires2 → 1
- scientist2 → 1
- see4 → 3
- data6 → 5
- noaa6 → 5
- rising7 → 6
- oceans8 → 7
- levels21 → 20
- chapter25 → 24
- report26 → 25
These are the standout words, not a full dictionary of the article. Boring markup words are filtered out. Treat this as a hint, not a conclusion.
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 45496 → rev 45679 (exact confirmation, 2002-04-05 → 2002-04-05): 0 websites were cited more (or newly), 0 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 0 → 0. Different websites: 20 → 20.
Mix of citation types: — → —.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| none in top list | |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| none in top list | |
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 281784264 → rev 281790842 (exact confirmation, 2009-04-04 → 2009-04-04): 0 websites were cited more (or newly), 0 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 147 → 147. Different websites: 105 → 105.
Mix of citation types: journal 50%, web 31%, news 12%, book 7%, press 1% → journal 50%, web 31%, news 12%, book 7%, press 1%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| none in top list | |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| none in top list | |
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 840836880 → rev 841297450 (exact confirmation, 2018-05-12 → 2018-05-15): 0 websites were cited more (or newly), 10 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 292 → 292. Different websites: 139 → 133.
Mix of citation types: journal 38%, web 30%, book 21%, news 9%, press 1%, report 1% → journal 36%, web 32%, book 20%, news 9%, press 1%, report 1%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| none in top list | |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| icess.ucsb.edu | 2 → 0 |
| pnas.org | 3 → 2 |
| cc.oulu.fi | 1 → 0 |
| avturchin.narod.ru | 1 → 0 |
| mpg.de | 1 → 0 |
| therealnews.com | 1 → 0 |
| ipcc.ch | 78 → 77 |
| books.google.com | 2 → 1 |
| econlib.org | 1 → 0 |
| onlinelibrary.wiley.com | 4 → 3 |
Counted from the article’s own footnotes. We list domains only — we do not call any source trustworthy or untrustworthy.
Cross-language lead comparison
How the opening of the article presents the topic in different languages. Disagreement is a reason to read carefully, not a final answer.
The English lead text is identical between the BEFORE and AFTER revisions in this short window (2018-05-12 to 2018-05-15), showing no substantive change. The Gujarati article also shows no textual change between its BEFORE (2017) and AFTER (2018) revisions, remaining anchored to older IPCC Fourth Assessment Report content (2005/2007 statements) rather than the Fifth Assessment Report cited in English, so the divergence between English and Gujarani content persisted across the window rather than changing. The Chinese entry is merely a redirect in both revisions, but the redirect target itself changed from 'climate change' (氣候變遷) to 'climate variability and change' (氣候變率與變化), a structural/title change with no comparable content to assess against English's stable lead. No genuine convergence or divergence in substantive content can be established from these snapshots beyond the persistence of the Gujarati/English gap and the Chinese redirect retargeting.
Compared matched historical revisions around the confirmed rewrite from 2018-01-01 to 2022-01-01.
Languages compared: en, gu, zh.
Version receipts: en: en before / en after · gu: gu before / gu after · zh: zh before / zh after
| topic | how they compare | English change | other language(s) change | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| English lead text unchanged; Gujarati and Chinese versions remain outdated or are redirects rather than parallel articles | difference persisted | Before: Global warming...is the observed century-scale rise...In 2013, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report concluded that 'It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.' “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” After: Global warming...is the observed century-scale rise...In 2013, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report concluded that 'It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.' “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” | Before: પૃથ્વીના તાપમાનમા થઇ રહેલા સતત વધારાને વૈશ્વિક ઉષ્ણતા કહેવામાં આવે છે...IPCC Fourth Assessment Report...2005ના નિવેદનમાં...2007ના નિવેદનમાં “no quotation” After: પૃથ્વીના તાપમાનમા થઇ રહેલા સતત વધારાને વૈશ્વિક ઉષ્ણતા કહેવામાં આવે છે...IPCC Fourth Assessment Report...2005ના નિવેદનમાં...2007ના નિવેદનમાં “no quotation” | gu, zh |
| Chinese article status: redirect target changed from 'climate change' to 'climate variability and change' | unclear change | Before: Global warming, also referred to as climate change, is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, and its related effects. “Global warming, also referred to as climate change, is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, and its related effects.” After: Global warming, also referred to as climate change, is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, and its related effects. “Global warming, also referred to as climate change, is the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, and its related effects.” | Before: 重定向 氣候變遷 “重定向 氣候變遷” After: REDIRECT 氣候變率與變化 “REDIRECT 氣候變率與變化” | zh |
Differences are invitations to read both sides — not a score of who is right.
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: Q125928.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | before | Climate change | open version 840836880 | 2018-05-12T14:00:31Z | 3,000 |
| en | after | Climate change | open version 841297450 | 2018-05-15T00:34:18Z | 3,000 |
| gu | before | વૈશ્વિક આબોહવા પરિવર્તન | open version 534833 | 2017-11-21T11:02:32Z | 3,000 |
| gu | after | વૈશ્વિક આબોહવા પરિવર્તન | open version 642901 | 2018-11-23T15:14:23Z | 3,000 |
| zh | before | 氣候變化 | open version 38888995 | 2016-01-29T03:25:53Z | 8 |
| zh | after | 氣候變化 | open version 77405052 | 2023-05-24T23:01:21Z | 16 |