As a user, I am unable to easily see significant disruptive or constructive changes have been made to an article.
As a reader, I unable to easily evaluate the history of a page to evaluate its potential bias.
One of the main problems with the regular history is that everything is jumbled up. The history page simply lays out information without highlighting anything, and revision slider makes things somewhat worse because one can only see the summary after hovering. This means that it is hard to note if the article content was completely modified after years of existence, if it was suddenly blanked, or if it had considerable reverts.
Add some markers to denote some of these changes. Some of these can be detected using the automatic edit summary (Help:Automatic_edit_summaries), e.g.:
- Red bar - whenever a newer revision is completely blank
- Red bar - whenever a revision shows more than 70% of the content being removed
- Orange bar - indicating a revert, if two adjacent revisions have the exact same sha1 hash
Other ideas include:
- Highlight the most repeated revisions - by verifying a group of revisions that has the same content or sha1. This would be a possible indicator of revert or edit disagreements without even looking at all of them individually.
- Highlight main contributor -show clusters of revisions done by major user. No matter what, a page created by a single user will always contain their biases, and is less likely to be reliable.