Wikipedia's page history shows a record of revisions that can help you understand how an article changed. Compare versions to identify the exact edit, then review its explanation and sources before deciding whether a correction request is appropriate.
01
Compare the relevant versions
Open the article's history and locate the period when the disputed text appeared. A difference view, or diff, highlights changes between revisions. Record the revision link, timestamp, text added or removed and any edit summary. Read the surrounding paragraph: a short deletion may be part of a larger correction, and the latest editor may not have introduced the original claim.
02
Interpret public records carefully
Contribution records describe publicly recorded editing activity, not a verified biography of the person behind an account. Do not infer an employer, location or malicious intention from a username or editing pattern alone. Some information may be unavailable or restricted. If several revisions are involved, build a factual sequence rather than accusing the last visible contributor of writing every disputed sentence.
- Preserve a permanent revision or diff link for the specific change.
- Check the cited source and article discussion before drafting a request.
- Separate a factual sourcing problem from disagreement over tone or emphasis.
03
Use the history to make a precise request
A useful request identifies the sentence, explains the concern and proposes a supported correction. For example, a changed founding date can be discussed with a reliable published source and the relevant diff. Disclose any connection to the subject; paid contributors have additional disclosure duties. Avoid repeated reversions or contacting editors to pressure them into an outcome.
Frequently asked questions
Does an edit summary explain everything?
No. Summaries can be brief or absent. Review the actual difference, sources and discussion rather than treating the summary as a complete explanation of intent.
Can an agency identify an anonymous editor for me?
Public history is not a reliable identity service. Focus on the content issue and appropriate Wikipedia processes rather than attempting to expose private personal information.
Continue with your next step
Related guides on this topic
Sources and policies
Check the current policy before submitting a request.
You do not have to figure out the next step alone.
Share the URLs and explain your concern. We will review the context and explain which options are worth assessing.
Request a confidential reviewOr call (307) 429-2531Educational information, not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the facts and decisions made by third parties.