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)
---
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.
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)
The growth in wikipedia looks fairly exponential. Is there a version that uses a logarithmic graph? Andjam 10:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
(moved similar discussions into single section for readability - kotra 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
please correct the line for de!!!!!!!!!!! there is no stop of growth, nonsense. JS, 02:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
um.... *looks at the red line* I think we broke it. - Aknorals 03:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 A version that is accurate but out of date is probably of more value than one which is fairly recent but wrong.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)
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)
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)
This has been an issue since May. Please, someone, fix it! 71.252.98.222 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
---
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.
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)
The growth in wikipedia looks fairly exponential. Is there a version that uses a logarithmic graph? Andjam 10:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
(moved similar discussions into single section for readability - kotra 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC))
please correct the line for de!!!!!!!!!!! there is no stop of growth, nonsense. JS, 02:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
um.... *looks at the red line* I think we broke it. - Aknorals 03:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This has been an issue since May. Please, someone, fix it! 71.252.98.222 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
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)