2009/2/16 Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>: > 30% by articles, maybe, but they were stubs weren't they, so it won't > be 30% by words. (That may explain why their articles are longer on > average.) Incidentally, I don't think Rambot articles were that > significant - if you look at the graphs, rate of growth didn't > increase when they were added as one would expect is rate of growth > were simply proportional to size (which it what gives exponential > growth) which suggests rate of growth was actually proportional to the > number of non-Rambot articles.
I remember them being a PITA at the time (early 2004). 200k articles with 30k Rambot articles meant [[Special:Random]] turned up Rambot articles entirely too often for my liking. I'm glad that (a) they're now vastly outnumbered (b) almost all have been significantly rewritten. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
