"a copyrighted image is going to be used less than one that is in the public domain"
That wasn't the conclusion.
The conclusion was that images are worth more, in terms of updates and visits, to Wikipedia articles than text.
This is still a conclusion that will doubtless have its share of people calling it obvious, but it's one I haven't seen quantified like this before. And in the case of baseball players in particular, in theory an image doesn't add nearly as much as their stats and team/championship information.
That wasn't the conclusion.
The conclusion was that images are worth more, in terms of updates and visits, to Wikipedia articles than text.
This is still a conclusion that will doubtless have its share of people calling it obvious, but it's one I haven't seen quantified like this before. And in the case of baseball players in particular, in theory an image doesn't add nearly as much as their stats and team/championship information.