Isi artikel wikipedia Indonesia yuuu

[MimiHitam]

kaga kok zzz, itu buat urusan laen

[MimiHitam]

Stern, a major German weekly, has reviewed 50 articles from various subject categories in the German Wikipedia and compared them to articles in a well-known traditional German language encyclopedia. Their conclusion, based on expert feedback: Wikipedia is actually significantly more accurate, comprehensive, complete and correct than the 15-volume paper encyclopedia it was compared to.

In fact, Wikipedia has come out well in any systematic quality comparison ever conducted. A review by Nature last year that compared Wikipedia with the Encyclopaedia Britannica showed that the number of errors in both encyclopedias was almost equal. (Britannica, unsurprisingly, disagreed, and Nature responded once more.) And a 2004 systematic comparison of German Wikipedia articles with those in two other encyclopedias also found Wikipedia to be accurate and comprehensive — but lacking multimedia.

Due to its radical openness, Wikipedia requires readers to be aware of the method through which it is produced: massive open collaboration. There is no pre-publication review; articles are constantly being worked on, pushed ever closer to an ideal summary of a topic. Wikipedians care deeply about quality, and processes like Featured Article Candidates, Peer Review, and Articles for Deletion are used to assess it. Did you even know that these processes exist? There’s dozens more like it — collaborations around specific topics, systematic review, contests, mentoring, countless lists of articles that have small or large problems, and so forth.

The fundamental model of Wikipedia is not a failure, it is a success that has been validated countless times — and that’s why we’ve been careful with changes to it. That being said, we do want to become capable of implementing innovative changes and processes that will increase the usefulness of our projects. An example (and the practical implementation is much harder than the basic idea) is a community validation process which allows readers to look at the last version of an article that has received a certain level of shared scrutiny by trusted contributors. Wikipedia is heterogeneous in nature, and making differences in quality more visible to the reader is part of building trust and reliability.

We need your support to develop, test and deploy changes like this. And we will do so carefully and in controlled environments. Ultimately, we hope that Wikipedia will be known not only as the most open and the largest, but also as the most reliable encyclopedia in history.

Erik Möller has been a Wikipedia contributor since 2001, and was elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees in 2006. This post is a personal opinion, and does not represent an official statement from the Wikimedia Foundation.

[Nining_Meida]

Saya sih ingin menyumbang, tapi, harus sering-sering ke perpustakaan dan baca buku, saya nanti pusing.

~NM~

[MimiHitam]

Beuh, jangan males lah... cc kan pinter xD kepintaran yang tidak digunakan mubazir lhooo

[-Krisdayanti-]

males ah... mending dota ::brokoli::

[MimiHitam]

males ah... mending dota ::brokoli::

males membawa petaka lho..

[Home_Sickness]

Mimi cantumin artikel ttg Global Warming donk!!!

bwat belajar nie.............

ama buat Speak - Speak remedial Sejarah.

Asli Percuma aja gw masuk Jurusan IPA kalau masih ada sejarah...

[MimiHitam]

global warming di ID udah lengkap, liat aja

[MimiHitam]

Can You Trust Wikipedia?
December 7th, 2007

This week, people all over Germany are seeing the following magazine cover:



Stern, a major German weekly, has reviewed 50 articles from various subject categories in the German Wikipedia and compared them to articles in a well-known traditional German language encyclopedia. Their conclusion, based on expert feedback: Wikipedia is actually significantly more accurate, comprehensive, complete and correct than the 15-volume paper encyclopedia it was compared to.

In fact, Wikipedia has come out well in any systematic quality comparison ever conducted. A review by Nature in December 2005 that compared Wikipedia with the Encyclopaedia Britannica showed that the number of errors in both encyclopedias was almost equal. (Britannica, unsurprisingly, disagreed, and Nature responded once more.) And a 2004 systematic comparison of German Wikipedia articles with those in two other encyclopedias also found Wikipedia to be accurate and comprehensive — but lacking multimedia.

Due to its radical openness, Wikipedia requires readers to be aware of the method through which it is produced: massive open collaboration. There is no pre-publication review; articles are constantly being worked on, pushed ever closer to an ideal summary of a topic. Wikipedians care deeply about quality, and processes like Featured Article Candidates, Peer Review, and Articles for Deletion are used to assess it. Did you even know that these processes exist? There are dozens more like it — collaborations around specific topics, systematic review, contests, mentoring, countless lists of articles that have small or large problems, and so forth.

The fundamental model of Wikipedia is not a failure, it is a success that has been validated countless times — and that’s why we’ve been careful with changes to it. That being said, we do want to become capable of implementing innovative changes and processes that will increase the usefulness of our projects. An example (and the practical implementation is much harder than the basic idea) is a community validation process which allows readers to look at the last version of an article that has received a certain level of shared scrutiny by trusted contributors. Wikipedia is heterogeneous in nature, and making differences in quality more visible to the reader is part of building trust and reliability.

We need your support to develop, test and deploy changes like this. And we will do so carefully and in controlled environments. Ultimately, we hope that Wikipedia will be known not only as the most open and the largest, but also as the most reliable encyclopedia in history.

Erik Möller has been a Wikipedia contributor since 2001, and was elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees in 2006. This post is a personal opinion, and does not represent an official statement from the Wikimedia Foundation.

[SpiRiTzZz_12]

Mimi...

artikel yang lo copas di sini maksud na suruh di translate gitu??

ato buat info aja (FYI) ??

[MimiHitam]

yg diatas itu info, bahwa Wikipedia akurat

[Accretianz]

Mi, tentang hak cipta gmn? gw ga ngerti yg ditulis di sana

[MimiHitam]

... ...

maksudnya gambar ato apa?

[Accretianz]

katanya artikel yg melanggar hak cipta di apus... nah, kalo skrg gw translate dr english wiki? mesti di apain??

[MimiHitam]

kalo translate gapapa, yg melanggar hak cipta itu, kalo gue copas mentah2 dari web laen ato buku