File talk:Wikipedia growth.png

I've enlarged the legend of this to make it readable in a thumbnail. I believe that is an improvement. If people disagree, please say so here. If there is anything like a consensus against me, revert me. I won't be watchlisting the page, but feel free to ping me if you need to discuss this with me. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:01, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

---

exponential growth?

This is NOT an example of exponential growth. Sure, it is a pretty steep increase... but not all steep increases are exponential. THIS IS NOT.

You say this with no evidence. I did a quick calculation using a spreadsheet (13 data points taken by eye, from jan 03 to jan 06 of the en line) of time vs log(articles) and found a rather convincing straight line. My calculations estimate the number of English articles A = (0.8x10^5)Exp[3T/4], where T is the time in years after jan 03.

graph needs editing

I have trouble telling what those languages are (what is ja, for example?), and it should say (thousands of articles) on the y-axis. Citizen Premier 06:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ja is Japanese, I believe. I agree that that the y-axis should be labelled and that the languages should be expanded. Haddock420 22:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logarithmic graph version

The growth in wikipedia looks fairly exponential. Is there a version that uses a logarithmic graph? Andjam 10:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded request for single-logarithmic graph of en growth. Ghent 18:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Oops sorry about the 2 reverts i accendently clicked to make the first one... so i put it back. Again, sorry. Kris18 00:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated figures

(moved similar discussions into single section for readability -kotra 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

graph is wrong

please correct the line for de!!!!!!!!!!! there is no stop of growth, nonsense. JS, 02:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That would be the line for en, JS. Maybe the article-counting-script couldn't hack much more than a million? Faulty for-next or something? (JS, there is never, ever a call for more than two exclamation marks. Seriously.) Gorman 06:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what JS means is if you look at the line for de right now you will see a tiny straight line. Obviosly this is faulty. JS does not mean the line for en as his comment was before said error was created. and I agree with Gorman on the exclamation mark front!!!- just joking. Ronan.evans 09:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O_o

um.... *looks at the red line* I think we broke it. -Aknorals 03:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the drop off?

According to this graph, the number of articles in the english wikipedia was growing rapidly until February of 2006. At the time, new articles seems to drop off completely, with almost no new articles being created.

Is this graph accurate, or is there some sort of artifact that explains the oddity in the graph. If the graph is correct, what explains the sudden drop-off in new articles?? -Alecmconroy 10:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment, Wikipedia has 1,185,097 articles, which is around 1200k, so the graph is not correct - hence the {{update}} on the page. ;-) Ghent 18:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the program used to create the graph stopped at 1048576 (= 2^20) --84.221.199.94 13:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why we don't revert this to a version that is accurate, for example [1]? A version that is accurate but out of date is probably of more value than one which is fairly recent but wrong. JRM · Talk 14:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De

Could someone correct the line for de. I doubt there has been a complete stop in new articles. Thanks. Ronan.evans 23:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for not being accurate

The toolserver for some Wikipedias has failed in some areas - I think this may be part of the problem. Also, does anyone know what happened on en-wiki in September 2002? Thanks, Zapptastic (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what's with the dropoff?

This has been an issue since May. Please, someone, fix it! 71.252.98.222 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for not being accurate, Part II

This graph draws its information from (circuitously) this, which in turn draws its information from corrupt Wikipedia dumps. According to that page, "Since a year it has become increasingly difficult to produce valid dumps for the largest wikipedias. Until that problem is fixed some figures will be outdated." User:Erik Zachte may be the only one who can fix this problem, and he appears to be well aware of the problem. His most recent comment on the subject -kotra 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]