2009/2/16 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:
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.