2009/2/16 Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl>nl>:
calculations come out as about 1/10 the size by articles and 1/3
the size by words (so their articles must be longer on average).
About 30% of the volume of WP at the time consisted of Rambot articles,
which aren't too interesting as a measurement of growth (though they may
have been a significant reason for our success).
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.