inhabited vs inhabitated

0 01font01b00Inhabitated02b02font00 it's archaic, as per M-W. Use the short form: 01b00inhabited02b0-

0 Is it "archaic enough" to be listed as a misspelling? I've seen 00"inhabitated" in so many articles on Wikipedia that I wonder if it is incorrectly used by non-native speakers of English like me or sometimes it's the preferable way to go (used by native speakers). Check this:02br
01a05

0 At the New York Times (a stricter site than Wikipedia)02br
02br
00 125 from nytimes.com for inhabitated.02br
01font00919,000 from nytimes.com for 01b00inhabited02b02font02br
02br
00 Clear enough? 0-

0 Thank you, although I don't seem to get the simple answer I'm looking for. If I was a native speaker and have to edit the 150 articles in Wikipedia that currently use "inhabitated" should I unconditionally change it to "inhabited" in 100% of the cases? 01b00Yes or No02b00.02br
02br
00P.S.02br
00Google/NyTimes etc. ratio 1/10000 is sometime

0Hi,02br
02br
00I don't remember ever hearing or reading the word 'inhabitated'.02br
02br
00Best wishes, Clive0-

0I'd edit them out, yes. Inhabitated sounds ridiculous to me.02br
02br
00From the topics and style of the first few wiki results including 'inhabitated', I wonder if they are by the same writer? 0-

0>Google/NyTimes etc. ratio 1/10000 is sometimes not a perfect word validity tool02br
02br
00 Not on the New York Times, not with such ratios, and not when M-W tells you there's something archaic with one of the versions. But you can stick to your story. 0-

0 Thank you all. It's now totally clear.0-