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 <glimmer_phoenix@yahoo.es> 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) <nemowiki@gmail.com> 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
Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics

Oliver Keyes
Product Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation