16 ms·
Wikipedia now has more than 6M articles in English
- dimensi0nal 7y agohttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Active_editors_on_English_Wikipedia_over_time.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Active_editors_on_En...
- jessriedel 7y agoLooks stable?
- mactrey 7y agoIt's impressive that it's stable considering there's probably a lot less to do on Wikipedia today than there was in 2007.
- jessriedel 7y agoIn what sense is there a certain "amount of work to do" defined independently of the number of volunteers and their interests? The only thing I can think of is that as the wiki grows in size, the amount of work that needs to be done to maintain fixed quality (combating vandalism, counteracting normal decay, fixing link rot) goes up roughly proportional to the number and length of articles. I guess you mean something like "Wikipedia ought to have an article on X, and didn't in 2007 but does in 2020". That certainly tracks the fact that there was more low-hanging fruit in 2007, but I don't think writing that article means there's any less work for a fixed number of editors to do. The amount of work left to do -- between here and a complete encyclopedia of all human knowledge -- is damn near infinite, and is limited mostly by editor interest.
- benrbray 7y agoAs an English Wikipedia user, one obvious gap I've noticed is the lack of detailed information about the geography and history of countries where English is not natively spoken. I can only imagine that as time goes on, more of these details will be filled in!
- mactrey 7y agoWikipedia's rules on notability and article length prevent it from growing infinitely (in theory). So my point is exactly that - all that "low-hanging fruit" is mostly gone, and most of the actual writing work that's left is either writing a new article on a subject that is at the margin of notability, which one would expect the average adult to have less interest in than writing a new article on a truly notable subject, or rewriting a section of an existing more notable article which tends to annoy whichever editor last edited it. But you make a good point that the maintenance work probably grows linearly with the size of the corpus, so really the flat number of active editors shows that the number of editors actively engaged in the research and writing of entries has probably actually declined significantly since 2007.
- commoner 7y ago> Wikipedia's rules on notability and article length prevent it from growing infinitely (in theory). That doesn't appear to be true. New people are born, new events occur, new things are discovered, and new entertainment is released every day, all of which increase the pool of eligible topics on Wikipedia. As long as history continues to be made, new articles will continue to be written.
- incompatible 7y agoCompanies, sport, politics, arts, endless churn. It's not unusual to find out-of-date articles on Wikipedia. It also seems to be that a surprisingly small proportion of edits add new information.
- jessriedel 7y ago> Wikipedia's rules on notability and article length prevent it from growing infinitely (in theory). I take your point, but I would claim that Wikipedia is no where near the maximimum size set by the notability criterion. You can just look at the incredible depth it has on some niche topics like anime that happen to be of interest to the editor demographic (which do strain the notability criterion) and imagine that level of thoroughness on lots of other stuff like (e.g., "photobiology" is a weak page that came up hitting the random-article button). > so really the flat number of active editors shows that the number of editors actively engaged in the research and writing of entries has probably actually declined significantly since 2007. Yea, maybe, although improvements in automated maintenance tools may mean that a fixed or even decreasing number of editors could be maintaining the growing encyclopedia.
- flashman 7y agostill heaps of proxy culture wars to fight while straining NPOV to the limit!
- brenden2 7y agoWikipedia is an incredible achievement. It's one of the only information sources I find to be consistently useful across a broad range of topics. It's also one of the only remaining sources I feel to be mostly trustworthy. These days I append either "wikipedia" or "reddit" to most of my Google searches in order to get useful information. There's so much SEO'd garbage out there, but Wikipedia remains a breath of fresh air.
- IIAOPSW 7y agoWhy not skip the middleman and go directly to wikipedia or reddit?
- bananamerica 7y agoIDK about Wikipedia, but Reddit's builtin search sucks. Google is better.
- majos 7y agoI find Google’s search on Reddit to be much better than Reddit’s.
- jacobajit 7y agoReddit/Wikipedia search are an order of magnitude worse than Google
- commoner 7y agoWikipedia search works well for me. The site search is exhaustive, returning every single page matching the query. For topics in the news recently, all changes are propagated to Wikipedia's search index immediately, while Google takes longer to recognize changes.
- jolmg 7y agoI don't know about Reddit, but for Wikipedia I just write a guess for the title of the article I'm looking for, and if I'm not redirected to the proper title of the article, then I'm normally sent to a disambiguation page. I've never found myself in need of something like Google for Wikipedia.
- HenryKissinger 7y agoUnfortunately, the .ORG domain registry is being sold to a private equity firm. Could Wikipedia just switch to .com? How technically difficult would it be?
- trianglem 7y agoWhat difference would that make for Wikipedia specifically?
- Uehreka 7y agoIf the Wikimedia foundation lost their .org domains, not only would they need to find a new domain, but they wouldn’t be able to redirect requests from the billions of links to Wikipedia on the internet, and all those links would die. I also don’t think that will happen. If the new .org owners took down a world-beloved high-traffic site like Wikipedia, the public outcry from people of all political persuasions would make government regulation of the domain become quite likely and I’m pretty sure .org’s new owners don’t want that smoke. I also don’t even know the rules, it might be impossible for them to do so for some technical reason.
- colejohnson66 7y agoWorth mentioning that Wikipedia.com already redirects to the .org version.
- airstrike 7y agoOne step closer to the Ancient Database[0]. Which one of you is going to build the holo room? [0] https://www.gateworld.net/wiki/Ancient_database https://www.gateworld.net/wiki/Ancient_database
- orange3xchicken 7y agoI always thought of wikipedia as an Encyclopedia Galactica - even though it's edited more like the Hitchhikers Guide.
- majos 7y agoI’m a big fan of Wikipedia. It’s not perfect, and plenty of pages are outright bad, but repeatedly clicking “random page” [1] is a great source of entertainment to me. There’s so much info out there, yet I reliably get something surprising, interesting, or funny within maybe 10 random pages. And because it’s random, I learn things way outside my normal interests. Try it if you find yourself mindlessly scrolling! It’s pretty easy but you find way more cool things (that typically people don’t broadly know about, if you like that sort of thing). I donate a few bucks a month and it’s well worth it. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:random https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:random
- lakkal 7y agoI used to do that sometimes myself (and have also donated)!. One thing that always seemed strange was how often the random page would be for a soccer/football team or player, or for a random town in Poland.
- Liquix 7y agoWikipedia is AWESOME and I admire your selflessness & generosity in donating to a cause :) However, before giving them any more money I would recommend reading through the (Wikipedia-hosted, ironically) article titled "Wikipedia has Cancer". The revenue vs. employee count/operating costs ratio is way off. Like, orders of magnitude off. It's a tough pill to swallow considering how useful the site is and their respectable "information should be free for all" mission. Again, your generosity is admired and there are far worse causes to donate towards. Just want to make sure people see both sides of the coin before spending hard earned cash!
- majos 7y agoI remember this essay, the author’s main argument was: Wikipedia seemed fine 10 years ago with 5% of its current money, so the increased spending (and calls for donations to cover it) seems unjustified. I side with the author in requesting more transparency about what exactly donations get spent on, but this strict argument in terms of how spending growth just “looks” unreasonable isn’t convincing. Namely, it’s pretty plausible to me that scaling big to very big is more costly than scaling medium to big, so this comparison of increasing costs to cancer makes me skeptical. I don’t have any proof that Wikipedia uses donations judiciously, but the scale and quality of the service they offer relative to the annual revenue (about 100m) and expenses (about 80m) seems...pretty good. At any rate, I mostly view this as “paying a little for a good service” rather than “donating efficiently”. But thanks for the pointer.
- RivieraKid 7y agoIt's easy to forget how amazing Wikipedia is because people are so used to it. It's also an anomaly in todays internet landscape - no ads, popups or auto-play videos. I think it's literally the best website in existence. If you suggested 20 years ago that there will soon exist a free online encyclopedia, which has two orders of magnitude more words than Britannica, is updated daily and is mostly unbiased - they would probably think it's impossible.
- segfaultbuserr 7y ago> no ads, popups or auto-play videos. Also, there are no 100 JavaScript tracking scripts on Wikipedia, and it's probably one of the fastest sites among the top-100 websites in the world.
- Polylactic_acid 7y agoMost websites start out like wikipedia and then they feel the constant pressure to expand and now they have a mountain of expenses to cover so they tarnish the website in an effort to squeeze every last $ out of the user. I like how wikipedia has stuck to its original goal and kept a lean budget while delivering one of the most used websites on the internet.
- busymom0 7y agoAgree with everything except the "lean budget" part. My other comment has breakdown of their costs. They spend way too much money imo: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22135938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22135938
- segfaultbuserr 7y agoYes, it's my worry too. The Wikimedia Foundation kept expanding, and it may be unsustainable.
- Polylactic_acid 7y agoLean budget compared to all of the other websites at their size.
- preommr 7y agoWikipedia is the most incredible creation in modern times. Because it's not about some law of the universe that people have learned enough about to use to their advantage like electricity or nuclear physics. It's something inherent to us as a species that we came together to create a resource for everyone to access and that it has such a high level of quality. The culture around Wikipedia - the culmination of knowledge, the importance of said knowledge, the random curiosity of such a wide variety of topics and so much more, says so much about us as people. If you had asked me half a century ago if something like this would ever work - I would've said absolutely not. And yet, there it is.
- c3534l 7y agoI, like almost every person at the time, heard about wikipedia and scoffed at it. And, in the early days,the quality was atrocious and the scope seemingly insurmountable. But wikipedia almost ever gets better, not worse, and the limitation that the books have to sit on a shelf makes wikipedia far more than an encyclopedia. It has evolved, through time, to be something few people ever imagined it could be.
- Polylactic_acid 7y agoPeople tend to be super critical of wikipedia but I think it could have been a whole lot worse. We are incredibly lucky that wikipedia isn't owned by some tech megacorp, it isn't loaded with spyware JS bogging it down, and it doesn't require an account to use.
- O1111OOO 7y ago> We are incredibly lucky that wikipedia isn't owned by some tech megacorp, it isn't loaded with spyware JS bogging it down, and it doesn't require an account to use. There was Google's attempt in 2007 wih knol(0) - which many called an attempt at a Wikipedia killer. Agreed... We dodged a bullet. Authors could also choose to include ads from Google's AdSense on their pages ... All contributors to the Knol project had to sign in with a Google account ... authors were also able to choose the CC-BY-NC-3.0 license (which prohibits commercial reuse) or traditional copyright protection instead. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- NeoBasilisk 7y agoThe article count would actually be much higher if they weren't diligent about deleting or merging articles that they don't find notable.
- firediamond 7y agoMy thought on seeing the headline was along the same vein. 6M seemed like a rather low number. Not to say it isn't an impressive one by any means. I was just a little surprised.
- jonbaer 7y agoWonder what a 6M set would cost these days, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia
- agumonkey 7y agoI can probably buy a truck of Encyclopaedia Universalis for $1000 (I'm even tempted to say $0).
- busymom0 7y agoFor 2018 https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/financials-leadership/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/fin... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie... They are spending 81 million in expenses, a lot of of which is salaries.
- fhoffa 7y ago6 million pages! A quick look at their distribution: 3.6M of these pages got less than 10 views during December. 4.3M pages got less than 100 views each. 2.3M got less than 1000 views. That's the long tail. On the other side 680K pages got more than 1,000 views, 111K pages got more than 10k views, only 6k pages got more than 100k views, and 90 pages were able to gather more than 1M views (Star Wars, The Mandalorian, The Witcher...). In summary: The top 7.2% of Wikipedia pages earn 87% of all the monthly views. Yesterday I posted a deeper analysis on how these pages get their daily views: - https://towardsdatascience.com/interactive-the-top-2019-wikipedia-pages-d3b96335b6ae https://towardsdatascience.com/interactive-the-top-2019-wiki... Apparently the most popular pages are all related to movies (Avengers, Joker, ...), series (Ted Bundy, Chernobyl, Game of Thrones), and deaths.
- Thorentis 7y agoWow that's fascinating, I'd never really thought about page distribution. I have good feeling that the majority of those views are due to Google providing the answer for almost anything that can be found on Wikipedia in an "instant search result" box. It has a wikipedia link beneath it to read more, and I guess many people do.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rapnie 7y agoAlso makes me wonder how many pages are not viewed because instant search result was sufficiently informative.
- busymom0 7y agoThe 80/20 rule applies to many these sort of things. In case of Wiki, it's 90/10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
- balladeer 7y agoSometimes I worry about projects about Wikipedia and the Archive. When will they run out of storage space and money? When will it become too big to handle?
- scarejunba 7y agoWikipedia is great. Every time I create an article, it ends up being tended to by a bunch of gardener bots who fix up all the markup and make it look nice and put an infobox in, and then other people add a little and so on and it just gets better. Honestly, pretty astounding.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Thorentis 7y agoWikipedia is becoming so much more than an encyclopedia. I am constantly amazed at the level of detail people are willing to document things in. For instance, I wanted to find which episode I was up to in a particular series, so I Google it, find a Wikipedia page for the series, and sure enough there's a table listing every season and every episode, with a short synopsis of each episode. I'd say a very large portion of all page views are due to media related queries (TV shows, movies, books etc.).
- antsoul 7y agoDon't forget to thank the WikiGnomes for their work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao "What is your favorite good article that you contributed significantly to, or assisted significantly in it obtaining good status?" Ser Amantio di Nicolao : I have not worked on any good articles.
- tito 7y agoJust 6,000,000 topics of interest to cover all of history. That's about 1 per 1,000 people on the planet. There are 5.6 million small businesses in the United States alone. [1] Imagine a Wikipedia that had more like 6 trillion articles. I'm enamored with a startup named Golden (https://golden.com https://golden.com) which aims to do just that. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/257521/number-of-small-businesses-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/257521/number-of-small-b...
- lasagnaphil 7y agoI don’t think that startup will succeed to the same degree as Wikipedia. Making an successful online encyclopedia isn’t a tech problem, it’s more of a community problem. And it’s stupidly hard to maintain such a vibrant community, moreso if for-profit entities are involved. I’ve seen so many cases where the contributors leave the website due to clashes with corporate members (see StackExchange for an example) In a for-profit service where content is made by contributors without any pay, there’s an inherent power imbalance between the contributors and the platform owners, and it’s natural that tensions will arise.
- tito 7y agoBut what if it did succeed?
- hncensorsnonpc 7y agoWikipedia also is dominated by a elite class of early contributors, PC censorship people or people working directly for the cooperation or on their behalf. There are many accounts with more edits a day the humanly possible or 356 days of the year or article edits from IPs directly from government agencies whitewashing ... they do not even try or know how to hide it. When it comes to info outside of like nature science then wiki is NOT a re liable and unbiased source at all.
- spats1990 7y ago[dubious—discuss]
- iamgopal 7y agoDoes anybody remember knol from Google ?
- peter_d_sherman 7y agoFirst love: Books Second love: Wikipedia
- aeyes 7y agoIf you speak other languages Wikipedia certainly gets very interesting. German Wikipedia is pretty good, for some topics it is better than English Wikipedia. But Spanish Wikipedia is quite sad to read, todays articles have the quality I remember from when Wikipedia was 2 or 3 years old even though there are many times more Spanish than German speakers in the world. Then there are the Swedish and Cebuana Wikipedias which are large but were mostly created by a bot with almost useless stub articles. It makes me wonder what information sources other countries like China, India or Japan use.
- Bayart 7y agoI absolutely recommend people don't stay just think of the English version as the default. Other language communities certainly produce better articles on subjects they're closer to or where they have a better scholarly tradition. I tend to consult the German and Catalan (!) versions quite a bit, besides the French and English ones.
- SJSque 7y agoWhat's always struck me is how large the Dutch Wikipedia is (1,992,551 articles), given the relatively low number of people that speak that language. They would appear to be a pretty tech-savvy/well-connected nation. It's certainly consistent with the number of comments that I see here on HN that start with some variation on "Here in the Netherlands...".
- aeyes 7y agoThis page isn't up to date but it mentions that many Dutch articles were created by bots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Wikipedia This up to date graph from the German Wikipedia clearly shows the jumps: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Wikipedia-Artikelanzahl-Entwicklung-Top8.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Wikipedi...
- agumonkey 7y agoHa, well intersting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_in_Small_Pieces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_in_Small_Pieces has been deleted. Apparently it was considered ambiguous promotion.
- soheil 7y agoTo take a contrarian viewpoint: maybe Wikipedia isn't so good after all. In a capitalistic model it makes little sense why Wikipedia should thrive without enriching someone so massively in the process, therefore, it must be corrected. If we assume that line of thinking is valid (which I'm not saying we should or shouldn't) then it follows that an alternative Wikipedia riddled with ads would be a superior model, in terms of capitalism. It'd be much more similar to imdb perhaps, owned by Amazon. Wikipedia (in the film category) provides information in a much effective way and can stay on top of change by issuing revisions way better than imdb can ever do. If we jump to the most logical conclusion of the set of assumptions made above I think it then follows that readily accessible knowledge cannot necessarily be a good thing, otherwise, the market would have rewarded that. But we see in the case of imdb market did not reward it enough for it to achieve the same pedigree as Wikipedia. It's not good for people to learn facts that easily. There should be a higher cost associated with that. This is of course a ridiculous conclusion but I think it could make sense why it would be true. It is a whole other post for why it would be true but I will only give an example or two. One example is if knowledge is that easily accessible then anyone could achieve it without necessarily having enough desire to achieve said knowledge, and since we have limited capacity for knowledge acquisition and retainment we are most likely sacrificing knowledge that we are truly passionate about. Second example is maybe it isn't good for people to know so much anyway. After all there are many things that due to the laws of nature we are inherently incapable of ever knowing such as what is beyond knowable universe (nothing can travel faster than speed of light so we cannot learn about it since the knowledge or light from stuff beyond the knowable universe won't have enough time to ever reach us.)
- swebs 7y agoMan, I should really stop bothering to read comments that start off complaining about capitalism in completely unrelated threads.
- whalabi 7y agoThere's only 6 million notable places, people, businesses, abstract concepts, historical occurrences, species, theories, etc? Does this mean wiki is actually missing a lot? Or are there less things of note than one would think?
- killjoywashere 7y agoThere are competing philosophies on Wikipedia, deletionist vs inclusionist. Overall the inclusionists tend to win more than they loose, but the deletionists are a source of resistance to overcome. Some deletionist decisions have been decried as anti-intellectual, but they also contribute to the density of quality, so it's hard to say they're evil. More like neutrals with an incentive, but from the perspective of the self-ascribed "good" inclusionists, the vector between inclusion and deletion points toward evil, and is thus forever frustrating.
- whalabi 7y agoI didn't know about that, thanks
- loeg 7y agoIs this now a positive metric? They could have had 6 million 5 years ago if they didn't delete quite so many.
- The_mboga_real 7y agoIt is a great thing they are not racists, or loaded with fake content. Viva!
- Bayart 7y agoI can't read the article because the consent parameters for data collection are hidden behind layers upon layers of misleading UI and links, with a broken captcha inserted in the middle. So, Techcrunch can fuck off from now on I guess.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ignoramous 7y agoHow's https://golden.com https://golden.com doing? I have come across some really detailed Wikipedia articles (for sports events, for example) and at times some really drab ones which I try to edit to improve. But original research articles sometimes do contain a lot more specific information that doesn't survive editor scrutiny on Wikipedia. And the less we talk about numerous advertisment/PR/fluff articles and socio/geo-political edit wars being played out, the better. Take tech pages for example, I really think an enormous amount of information in blogs, online magazines, research papers need to be out there in Wikipedia pages too, if not as actual texts but as references. For instance, here's an article on HAMT [0] and another on Radix Trees [1] but the corresponding Wikipedia pages [2][3] for those aren't as consumable as the other two. There are also cases where pages are deleted because original research, like Willy Tarreau's EB Trees [4] that powers routing, caching on HAProxy. I tend to research more on Wikipedia than search engines, to be honest. May be, the search engines can get smart enough to amalgamate a page on the searched topic given the amount of open-web they crawl? [0] https://blog.mattbierner.com/hash-array-mapped-tries-in-javascript/ https://blog.mattbierner.com/hash-array-mapped-tries-in-java... [1] https://vincent.bernat.ch/en/blog/2017-ipv4-route-lookup-linux https://vincent.bernat.ch/en/blog/2017-ipv4-route-lookup-lin... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_array_mapped_trie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_array_mapped_trie [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_tree [4] https://wtarreau.blogspot.com/2011/12/elastic-binary-trees-ebtree.html https://wtarreau.blogspot.com/2011/12/elastic-binary-trees-e...
- drej 7y agoIt's only shame that Wikidata doesn't get as much attention. It's a knowledge graph that runs _some_ of Wikipedia's content. I became involved recently and what I'd like to do is to get Wikipedians to use Wikidata more (e.g. automatically loading births and deaths on people's profiles), because once these two services are more interlinked, we're gonna get more knowledge graph info for free since people editing Wikipedia will keep improving this structured dataset. I'd encourage people to get involved in either of these two projects - there's always a niche you know about and could improve its presence in the Wiki world.
- zweep 7y agoIs Wikidata how, for example, when a particular football team wins the Super Bowl, its articles are updated, the articles about the Super Bowl are updated, the article about the list of teams that have won multiple Super Bowls is updated, etc... all very quickly? Or is that just an army of volunteers.
- drej 7y agoThere are two aspects of this: 1. If all superbowl-related articles used an extraction mechanism that links wikipedia with wikidata, then only the wikidata entry needs updating and all these articles get updated automatically. 2. That wikidata update I mentioned was manual, but a lot of data in Wikidata is updated automatically (e.g. births and deaths from some databases, city population counts etc.), so some things get updated across the board automatically. That's a source of pushback against this - articles being updated automatically, so bad actors can change a lot of things at once.
- sornaensis 7y agoSurely having fewer points of information control makes auditing for suspicious/malicious edits easier than relying on auditing individual articles?
- Jasper_ 7y agoHere's what Wikidata says about Earth, an item that is number 2 in the ID list, and also on their front page as an example of incredible data. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2 I struggle to find anything interesting on this page. It is apparently a "topic of geography", whatever that means as a statement. It has a WordLift URL. It is an instance of an inner planet. The first perhaps verifiable, solid fact, that Earth has a diameter of "12,742 kilometre", is immediately suspect. There is no clarifying remark, not even a note, that Earth is not any uniform shape and cannot have a single value as its diameter. This is my problem with SPARQL, with "data bases", in that sense. Data alone is useless without a context or a framework in which it can be truly understood. Facts like this can have multiple values depending on exactly what you're measuring, or what you're using the measurement for. And this on the page for Earth, an example that is used on their front page, and has the ID of 2. It is the second item to ever be created in Wikidata, after Q1, "Universe", and yet everything on it is useless.
- carlsborg 7y agoAre there any AI benchmarks that use Wikipedia as a corpus?
- DonCopal 7y agoThe only problem with Wikipedia is figuring out in what revision was a certain text added. There are 2 tools, but they are not very good.
- mayurbhattit 7y ago6M pages! is it possible? because any user create a page, it is removed by moderators.
- Zenst 7y agoReally isn't that many when you compare it with things like the English language has over 40,000 words that are 8 letters long. Something I looked up recently out of curiosity with regards to the UK TV show Countdown, which has been running for years and is of French origins.