[marginalia_nu]

Not everything is written at a given point in time and then forgotten about. There are many texts that are continuously updated over years and even decades.

[Heinrich_zHM]

You can include an edit timestamp.

[marginalia_nu]

This still sort of codifies the edit is a discrete event, and not an ongoing process.

[jorams]

That's a good thing, because that final edit is a discrete event. At some point this ongoing process will end and the edits will stop. The people engaged in the process will likely forget or not be available to add a final timestamp, but an aging edit timestamp will automatically indicate this moment in time.

[account42]

It is always and ongoing process until it isn't. Knowing if/when the transition happened is useful.

[quickthrower2]

A bit like a file with a created and updated timestamp then?

[jankremer]

I think timestamps are even more important in that case.

[marginalia_nu]

Which timestamp is relevant on the body of a Wikipedia article that has been maintained for 15 years, with edits ranging from entire new sections being written to minor corrections of grammatical errors.

[account42]

All of them, which his why Wikipedia maintains an edit history.

At the very least you should provide the inital publish date and last update.

[marginalia_nu]

Doesn't provide an edit history in the article, though.