I can't see a reason for the data to not be available; the deficiencies were (iirc) pre-2004-ish. It's actually really trivial to tell when they started, because the "guesstimates" are the timestamp of the first revision associated with the user.
So I'm not sure that this was a deliberate design decision - and if it was, I can't imagine they'd nullify the entire field just because of some inaccuracies a decade ago ;p. On 13 February 2014 09:13, Felipe Ortega <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Nemo. > > It is a shame. Does this means that this information is also inaccurate > for users created after r12207 (Dec. 2005) ? At least, it would be useful > to compare any differences between the periods 2006-2008 and 2009-present. > > In fact, I remember that this information was available in the DB replicas > in Toolserver. But I haven't had the chance to check against log entries, > yet. > > Regards, > Felipe. > > > > El Jueves 13 de febrero de 2014 15:17, Federico Leva (Nemo) < > [email protected]> escribió: > > Felipe Ortega, 13/02/2014 14:57: > > > My question is: are there any reasons for redacting this (apparently > > public) info? I can't figure out why this could be sensitive data. > > > It's not redacted, it simply never existed. There aren't even log > entries for old registrations; on some wiki(s) the field was populated > with guesstimates. > See also https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18638 , > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22097 depends on it/is a > duplicate. > > Nemo > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > -- Oliver Keyes Product Analyst Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
