← Back to all analyses

Science (control)

Photosynthesis

The wording changed a lot over the full lifetime of the page (no single overhaul date stood out). 1 question out of 2 has a compatible detail difference.

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 ↗
Rewrite scan
No candidate window confirmed

L1 ran on this article and exact checking did not confirm a durable rewrite. This does not mean the article never changed.

Wording
wording changed a lot

Which words grew or shrank is listed under Vocabulary.

Footnotes
30 sites grew · 0 shrank

Different websites cited: 0 → 30. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.

Basic facts across languages
1 compatible difference · 1 agree

2 configured questions checked in more than one language. See Facts.

How openings sound
6 clear differences · 1 contradict

Compared around the rewrite window. See Framing.

Did editors fight over it?

How much did editors fight over it?
little edit fighting

The page was not dominated by back-and-forth undoing. A quiet rewrite can still matter — it just means few people fought it on the page. About 5,177 recorded revisions in the measure.

Who wrote today’s text?

Half of the wording still on the page is about 9.2 years old or newer. 26.7% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 42.8% of what is there now (authorship is more spread out; 428 different accounts overall). Snapshot data on this page runs through 2026-07-01.This is background only — a small group of writers is common on specialist pages.

Available evidence: Rewrite (no candidate found), Vocabulary, Citations, Framing, Facts, Versions.

No candidate rewrite window was confirmed

The exact L1 check ran, but no candidate showed the required durable-spine drop. This is a completed negative result for that detector, not a claim that the article never changed.

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. 1 · Coarse scanA snapshot comparison that finds candidate windows for closer inspection.No candidate signalNo measured interval crossed the detector's candidate threshold.
  2. 2 · Interval scoring49 intervals scoredThe bars below show persistence-weighted wording loss for each interval.
  3. 3 · Exact checkA revision-level test of whether a candidate window's durable spine collapsed.Not neededNo coarse candidate was sent to revision-level checking.
  • 2002-07-01Loss 10.8%22 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2003-01-01Loss 3.5%17 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2003-07-01Loss 9.2%78 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2004-01-01Loss 45.4%1,129 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2004-07-01Loss 0.7%18 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2005-01-01Loss 70.6%3,901 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2005-07-01Loss 78.3%4,505 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2006-01-01Loss 27.4%1,120 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2006-07-01Loss 6.6%491 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2007-01-01Loss 22.7%2,851 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2007-07-01Loss 4.0%650 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2008-01-01Loss 2.1%496 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2008-07-01Loss 1.6%514 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2009-01-01Loss 4.6%1,855 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2009-07-01Loss 27.7%13,740 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2010-01-01Loss 1.5%723 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2010-07-01Loss 0.9%562 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2011-01-01Loss 5.1%3,656 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2011-07-01Loss 2.5%2,028 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2012-01-01Loss 1.6%1,500 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2012-07-01Loss 2.9%2,959 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2013-01-01Loss 1.0%1,131 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2013-07-01Loss 8.9%11,154 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2014-01-01Loss 0.1%153 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2014-07-01Loss 0.5%716 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2015-01-01Loss 2.2%3,419 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2015-07-01Loss 1.7%2,836 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2016-01-01Loss 3.4%5,979 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2016-07-01Loss 1.6%3,085 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2017-01-01Loss 2.2%4,475 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2017-07-01Loss 0.4%883 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2018-01-01Loss 0.2%459 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2018-07-01Loss 1.2%3,019 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2019-01-01Loss 1.4%3,662 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2019-07-01Loss 1.3%3,700 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2020-01-01Loss 0.2%664 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2020-07-01Loss 0.9%2,781 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2021-01-01Loss 1.0%3,267 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2021-07-01Loss 0.3%1,101 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2022-01-01Loss 1.9%6,995 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2022-07-01Loss 0.6%2,269 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2023-01-01Loss 0.0%71 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2023-07-01Loss 1.3%5,656 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2024-01-01Loss 0.3%1,329 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2024-07-01Loss 2.3%11,079 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2025-01-01Loss 7.3%36,501 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2025-07-01Loss 0.1%501 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2026-01-01Loss 0.3%1,694 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
  • 2026-07-01Loss 4.0%21,557 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed

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 2002-01-01 -> 2026-07-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history). Rough word count: 42 → 4,528. Overall: wording changed a lot.

Used more afterward

  • carbon0 → 91
  • photosynthetic0 → 53

Used less afterward

  • biochemical1 → 2
  • color1 → 2
  • active1 → 4
  • glucose1 → 4
  • chemical2 → 9
  • absorbed1 → 6
  • converted1 → 7
  • overall1 → 7
  • above0 → 3
  • absorbs0 → 3
  • adapted0 → 3
  • agents0 → 3

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 2002-01-01 → 2026-07-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history): 30 websites were cited more (or newly), 0 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 0 → 133. Different websites: 0 → 30.

Mix of citation types: — → journal 66%, book 24%, web 7%, news 3%.

cited more oftenbefore → after
books.google.com0 → 16
archive.org0 → 6
life.illinois.edu0 → 5
perseus.tufts.edu0 → 4
newscientist.com0 → 4
life.uiuc.edu0 → 3
zfn.mpdl.mpg.de0 → 2
bio-medicine.org0 → 2
lexico.com0 → 2
eia.doe.gov0 → 2
escholarship.org0 → 2
bbc.com0 → 2
cited less oftenbefore → 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.

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 EN lead offers the most technically detailed and historically nuanced account, including archaeal anoxygenic photosynthesis, the Purple Earth hypothesis, and specific geochemical context (Canfield oceans, Boring Billion) that DE and GU omit entirely. GU explicitly contradicts EN by stating archaea do not perform photosynthesis, and instead emphasizes quantitative global metrics (terawatts, carbon biomass conversion) and an endosymbiotic evolutionary narrative not found in EN or DE. DE frames photosynthesis more generally as a physiological/biochemical energy-conversion process with less emphasis on evolutionary or microbial diversity, focusing instead on efficiency and ecological dependency of heterotrophs. These differences reflect varying editorial emphases—EN leans evolutionary/mechanistic detail, DE leans general biochemistry, GU leans quantitative and evolutionary-narrative framing—rather than clear factual errors, except for the archaea point which is a direct contradiction.

Languages compared: en, de, gu.

contradict opposite claims · differ different emphasis · missing only one side mentions it

topichow they compareEnglish saysother language(s) saylanguages
anoxygenic photosynthesis in archaeacontradictDescribes archaeal non-carbon-fixing anoxygenic photosynthesis using retinal/rhodopsin, possibly the earliest form of photosynthesis on Earth (Purple Earth hypothesis).DE and GU do not mention archaea performing photosynthesis at all; GU explicitly states photosynthesis does not occur in archaea.
“પ્રકાશસંશ્લેષણની પ્રક્રિયા છોડ, શેવાળ અને બૅક્ટેરિયાની ઘણી પ્રજાતિમાં જોવા મળે છે, પરંતુ તે આર્કીયામાં થતી નથી.”		EN, DE, GU
quantitative energy/carbon output of photosynthesismissing in EnglishNo specific numeric figures for global power output or carbon converted are given in the EN lead.GU states photosynthesis releases about 100 terawatts, six times human electricity consumption, and converts about 100 billion tons of carbon into biomass annually.EN, GU
origin of photosynthesis and evolutionary historydifferMentions archaeal photosynthesis possibly predating cyanobacteria in the Paleoarchean, and purple bacteria performing anoxygenic photosynthesis via bacteriochlorophyll in Canfield oceans.
“Such archaeal photosynthesis might have been the earliest form of photosynthesis that evolved on Earth, as far back as the Paleoarchean, preceding that of cyanobacteria”		GU gives a narrative of early photosynthesis using hydrogen/hydrogen sulfide instead of water, followed by cyanobacteria oxygenating the atmosphere, and later symbiosis with protists forming plant/algae ancestors (endosymbiotic origin of chloroplasts).
“આ પ્રોટીસ્ટોએ સાયનોબેક્ટેરિયમ સાથે સહજીવન (સિમબાયોટિક) સંબંધ રચ્યો, જેનાથી છોડ અને શેવાળના પૂર્વજો પેદા થયા હતા.”		EN, GU
anoxygenic photosynthesis productsdifferSpecifies purple bacteria use bacteriochlorophyll to split hydrogen sulfide, releasing sulfur, historically dominant in Canfield oceans during the Boring Billion.
“purple bacteria) use bacteriochlorophyll to split hydrogen sulfide as a reductant instead of water, releasing sulfur instead of oxygen, which was a dominant form of photosynthesis in the euxinic Canfield oceans during the Boring Billion”		DE only generally states anoxygenic photosynthesis in bacteria produces other inorganic substances such as elemental sulfur, without historical/geological context.
“Bei der anoxygenen Photosynthese, die nur von Bakterien betrieben wird, entstehen statt Sauerstoff andere anorganische Stoffe, beispielsweise elementarer Schwefel (S).”		EN, DE
definition emphasis: biological vs chemical processdifferDefines photosynthesis primarily as a biological process performed by photopigment-bearing autotrophic organisms.DE defines it primarily as a physiological/biochemical process for producing energy-rich biomolecules from lower-energy substances using light energy, emphasizing the chemical transformation and 'photosynthetic efficiency' concept.
“ist ein physiologischer Prozess zur Erzeugung energiereicher Biomoleküle aus energieärmeren Stoffen mit Hilfe von Lichtenergie.”		EN, DE
photorespiration and carbon-concentrating adaptationsmissing in EnglishNot directly discussed in EN lead excerpt (focus is on Calvin cycle and light reactions).DE lead does not mention photorespiration or carbon-concentrating mechanisms either; GU does mention this concept, highlighting a topic present in GU but absent from both EN and DE leads as provided.
“આનાથી પ્રકાશશ્વસન તરીકે ઓળખાતી બિનઉપયોગી પ્રક્રિયા ઘટે છે, જેમાં પ્રકાશસંશ્લેષણ દરમિયાન પેદા થયેલી શર્કરાનો કેટલોક ભાગ વપરાય છે.”		EN, DE

Differences are invitations to read both sides — not a score of who is right.

Do the languages agree on basic facts?

Simple factual questions checked in several languages. Editions may agree, differ, contradict, or not say enough to tell. That is not a claim about who is right.

On the latest check, 2 questions produced: 0 contradict · 1 compatible difference · 1 agree · 0 not enough said.

questiontoday
What are the inputs and outputs of the overall photosynthesis reaction?agree
All agree: CO2+water+light in, carbohydrates/glucose+O2 out; he specifies glucose formula.
In which cellular structure does photosynthesis take place?differ
All mention chloroplasts; he adds thylakoids in prokaryotes, extra detail not incompatible.

These checks are starting points for a reader. They do not decide 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: Q11982.

languagecomparison pointarticle titleversionwhentext used (chars)
ensavedPhotosynthesisopen version 13588386512026-06-11T08:28:10Z51,773