We've got one new member, Amir Ahroni. He is a linguist, he knows a
couple of languages and he is active in support of smaller Wikipedian
communities.
I am happy to announce that folk from Translatewiki [1] have joined
the Language committee as the Globalization subcommittee [2]. GlobCom
will take
On 25 July 2010 18:17, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> You're right, it is not just about images. If I set up a censored account for
> a small child, I should be able to set it up in such a way that they won't be
> able to see articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogg_(novel) or
> http://en.wikipe
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I was not aware of the Flickr situation in Germany. Are some of their
> servers based in Germany?
>
> As far as I am aware, the German Bundesprüfstelle für
> jugendgefährdende Medien[1] and the Kommission für Jugendmedienschutz
> (KJM) are limited in what they can do about i
Дана Sunday 25 July 2010 08:12:43 Shiju Alex написа:
> So what is the solution for this? Can we take lessons from
> Tamil/Bengali/Swahili wikipedias and find methods to use this service
> effectively or continue with the current article creation process.
I was thinking about a website that would h
> From: Milos Rancic
> And what about words? Do you think that one devoted
> homophobic
> Christian would be willing to see [relevant] citation
> inside of some
> general article that "Jesus was gay"?
>
> If it is not acceptable to someone to see pornographic
> content, it is
> highly possible th
Milos, when I am talking about the possibility of a censored default for IP
access, I am talking about the types of censorship Flickr and YouTube are
using. They categorise their content on the basis of whether it is moderate or
explicit adult content.
This has not resulted in Serbian YouTube
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:12 PM, wrote:
> I think you are confused. It is not a POV not to display images by
> default if those images can be accessed by a simple mouse click, it is
> simple good manners. For example I may want to read about 'Tribute
> pictures':
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/
--- On Sun, 25/7/10, Fajro wrote:
> Machine translation is always unsuitable to produce usable
> articles, but can
> help to start new ones in smaller wikipedias.
I second that. About 50% of machine translation output is gibberish, or worse,
plausible-sounding text that actually says the opposi
2010/7/25 Shiju Alex :
> Hello All,
>
> Recently there are lot of discussions (in this list also) regarding the
> translation project by Google for some of the big language wikipedias. The
> foundation also seems like approved the efforts of Google. But I am not sure
> whether any one is interested
I was not aware of the Flickr situation in Germany. Are some of their servers
based in Germany?
As far as I am aware, the German Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende
Medien[1] and the Kommission für Jugendmedienschutz (KJM) are limited in what
they can do about internet offerings registered a
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> about the toolkit, but I got the impression you're referring to Google
> Translate, which I agree is always unsuitable to produce usable
> articles.
>
Machine translation is always unsuitable to produce usable articles, but can
help to st
Well - this seems a bit confusing. I think Shiju Alex was talking
about the toolkit, but I got the impression you're referring to Google
Translate, which I agree is always unsuitable to produce usable
articles.
-m.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Przykuta wrote:
> about google translation, I th
> about google translation, I think.
>
> przykuta
>
oops, sorry i found an e-mail from Shiju Alex in spambox.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
about google translation, I think.
przykuta
> Can we clarify here, are we talking about Google Translate or Google
> Translator Toolkit?
>
> -m.
>
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Przykuta wrote:
> >> I've seen several requests, both on meta and on language projects, to
> >> delete this ki
Can we clarify here, are we talking about Google Translate or Google
Translator Toolkit?
-m.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Przykuta wrote:
>> I've seen several requests, both on meta and on language projects, to
>> delete this kind of bad quality "translation" which people think
>> better to
Aphaia, any machine translation system that produces even remotely
comprehensible results should be able to be used in machine-aided
translation. It is reduced to low utility if the output is complete
gibberish, however this doesn't seem to be the case; regardless, it's
possible to turn off automat
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2010/7/25 Andreas Kolbe :
>>> From: David Gerard
Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out
>>> the correct parameters for default IP access. Each language
>>> version of any project could make its own determination in
>>> this regard. Arabic, no Mohammed imag
> I've seen several requests, both on meta and on language projects, to
> delete this kind of bad quality "translation" which people think
> better to scratch a new version.
Uhm. In pl wiki google translate is evil. Translations by google translate are
deleted (not speedy). Users who use google
Thanks for your clarification, Node.ue, I know it because I attended
their presentation on Wikimania. It is an ambitious project I'd like
to see it growing, but at this moment they seem to have a serious
problem in its system. They seem to use English as a stem language,
and assumes all translation
2010/7/25 Andreas Kolbe :
>> From: David Gerard
>> > Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out
>> the correct parameters for default IP access. Each language
>> version of any project could make its own determination in
>> this regard. Arabic, no Mohammed images; India, no sex and
>> ki
Aphaia, a great deal of confusion has been created with regards to
this project. I hope you'll allow me to attempt to clear it up.
These are NOT articles that were translated directly by Google
Translate. Rather, they were created using Google Translator Toolkit,
which requires human intervention
Two things:
1) Please define "junk articles". Do you mean articles that you think
nobody in your community wants to read (like, say, an article about an
American singer or actor, for example [[Lady Gaga]]), or do you mean
articles that are written in such a way as to be incomprehensible, or
are fi
I would like to add to this that I think the worst part of this idea
is the assumption that other languages should take articles from
en.wp.
I would be in favor of an international, language-free Wikipedia
if/when perfect (or 99.99% accurate) MT software exists, but that is
not currently the case.
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>> Wikipedias are not for _cultures_, they are for languages. If I and
>
> I'm surprised to hear that coming from someone who I thought to be a
> student of languages. I think you might
stevertigo wrote:
> Translation between wikis currently exists as a largely pulling
> paradigm: Someone on the target wiki finds an article in another
> language (English for example) and then pulls it to their language
> wiki.
>
> These days Google and other translate tools are good enough to use
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> to see its content.
>
> Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out the correct
> parameters for default IP access. Each language version of any
> project could make its own determination in this regard. Arabic, no
> Mohammed images; India, no sex and kissing; Dutch
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Jon Davis wrote:
> I think the answer is "Yes and No". As with any new
> project/concept/idea/trial there are pro's and there are con's. The real
> question is: Do the pro's outweigh the con's?
>
> From just reading what you linked (And not in any way being
Bod Notbod wrote:
> Interesting blog post here which is really about the future of
> journalism but has implications for Wikipedia too.
>
> "The Federal Trade Commission suggests that copyright law could be
> expanded to limit the right of aggregators to republish reported facts
> within a specific
28 matches
Mail list logo
