I'm not sure why it's necessary to focus on unsourced data so much.
It was barely mentioned. And it was mentioned because the documentation says they are building something with no support for sources at all. That means it won't even function on EnWiki unless/until they do add support for sourcing.
Devs: I just realized something. When you say your building something with no support for sources, does that mean the software will update the value and:
- Delete any source information that was attached? Or...
- Not-touch any preexisting source that was attached?
Neither option is particularly good, but I really hope you already considered this issue and already realized why one of those options would be extremely bad. Angry mob bad.
Another RfC could be a useful opportunity; a possible outcome could be to hide the pencil icons for (e.g.) unregistered users by using CSS classes.
No, that's not credibly possible as an outcome. The debate was whether to use Wikidata in infoboxes at all, and there were a lot of complaints that the RFC was overly complicated. We're not going to include trivial details like the pencil icon in the same RFC debating whether to fully deploy or fully rollback use of Wikidata in infoboxes. Small details like the icon would have to be addressed separately. The icon is irrelevant if the community decides Wikidata doesn't belong in infoboxes at all.
I expect the next RFC will follow up directly from the result of the last RFC. The result was that Wikidata might be acceptable for use if the relevant concerns are satisfied. I expect the RFC will ask whether Wikidata content is a sufficiently reliable source in specific and sufficiently compliant with Wikipedia policies&guidelines in general for automated import of Wikidata content into Wikipedia.
Wikidata's ratio of sourced to unsourced statements would have improved since 2018
The ratio of unsourced statement is irrelevant because the unsourced statements are irrelevant. They are already blocked. The only problem is the sourced statements.
WikidataIB module can ignore Wikidata values if they aren't sourced properly
No it can't. I discussed this with the module developer. The module makes an simplistic attempt, and it does filter (most) unsourced items. However it can't even reliably filter out items circularly sourced to Wikipedia. (It pattern-matches for "Wikipedia" in the source field, but millions of items are sourced to Wikipedia without having that text string anywhere in the source field.) The WikidataIB maintainer also refused to even attempt to filter out items which are circularly sourced to Wikidata. (Those items may be unsourced, but pass through the filter because there is a circular source claim attached.) The filter can't reasonably detect which items are circularly sourced to Wikidata, any such filter would have to overblock a massive percentage of all sourced items on Wikidata. And that's not even considering the universe of general bad sources, and other issues.