Thorsten Ruprechter, Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Robert West, Denis Helic

Wikipedia, the Web's largest encyclopedia, frequently faces content disputes or malicious users seeking to subvert its integrity. Administrators can mitigate such disruptions by enforcing "page protection" that selectively limits contributions to specific articles to help prevent the degradation of content. However, this practice contradicts one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles$-$that it is open to all contributors$-$and may hinder further improvement of the encyclopedia. In this paper, we examine the effect of page protection on article quality to better understand whether and when page protections are warranted. Using decade-long data on page protections from the English Wikipedia, we conduct a quasi-experimental study analyzing pages that received "requests for page protection"$-$written appeals submitted by Wikipedia editors to administrators to impose page protections. We match pages that indeed received page protection with similar pages that did not and quantify the causal effect of the interventions on a well-established measure of article quality. Our findings indicate that the effect of page protection on article quality depends on the characteristics of the page prior to the intervention: high-quality articles are affected positively as opposed to low-quality articles that are impacted negatively. Subsequent analysis suggests that high-quality articles degrade when left unprotected, whereas low-quality articles improve. Overall, with our study, we outline page protections on Wikipedia and inform best practices on whether and when to protect an article.