| abian added a comment. |
Thank you for such an accurate analysis! And for offering your own computing resources.
About the results
I would read the results in a negative way, I would say the conclusion is Items that are used in less than 9 pages aren't so used as to protect them for this reason, while the rest of Items might be protected or might not. More variables than the number of uses are significant to decide whether or not to protect an Item and some of them aren't easily quantifiable, for example:
- the opportunity cost of each potential good edit prevented because of a semi-protection,
- the value we give to preventing a bad edit,
- the ratio bad edits/total edits by non-confirmed users,
- the ratio edits by non-confirmed users/total edits,
- the visibility that vandalism on an Item has per Item use,
- the completeness and timelessness of an Item (or the opposite, the potential of an Item to be improved),
- etc.
Taking these other variables (subjectively) into account I wouldn't feel comfortable protecting all those Items. In any case, that would be a decision I would have to agree with many users. The important thing is that now we objectively know more than before. Thanks again, @GoranSMilovanovic!
Cc: AfroThundr3007730, GoranSMilovanovic, Lydia_Pintscher, abian, Aklapper, Nandana, Lahi, Gq86, QZanden, LawExplorer, _jensen, Wikidata-bugs, aude, Mbch331
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
