Hello all,
I am a heavy translator on WikiMedia projects. I would say more than 95%
of my contributions on content is translation. But I am against a blind
translation. For example mostly I would translate british or north
american related content from en-wp to zh-wp, and not from other
lang
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Suppose for a minute that your proposal were implemented, and all the
> machine translation problems were overcome. Would English NPOV be so
> good that community members in the target language would be incapable of
> making substantive improvements? And if they did make sub
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Fajro wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Ragib Hasan wrote:
>
>> (The tool used was Google Translation Toolkit. (not Google Translate).
>> There is a distinction between these two tools. Google Translation
>> Toolkit (GTT) is a translation-memory based semi
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
> Aphaia wrote:
>> Ah, I omitted T, and I meant Toolkit. A toolkit with garbage could be
>> called toolkit, but it doesn't change it is useless; it cannot deal
>> with syntax properly, i.e. conjugation etc. at this moment. Intended
>> to be "re
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Ragib Hasan wrote:
> (The tool used was Google Translation Toolkit. (not Google Translate).
> There is a distinction between these two tools. Google Translation
> Toolkit (GTT) is a translation-memory based semi-manual translation
> tool. That is, it learns transl
As an admin in Bengali wikipedia, I had to deal with this issue a lot
(some of which were discussed with the Telegraph (India) newspaper
article). But I'd like to elaborate our stance here:
(The tool used was Google Translation Toolkit. (not Google Translate).
There is a distinction between these
Mass machine translations ("pushing" them onto other projects that may or
may not want them) is a very bad idea.
Beginning in 2004-05, a non-native speaker on en.wp decided that he should
import slightly-cleaned babelfish translations of foreign language articles
that did not have articles on the
Aphaia wrote:
> Ah, I omitted T, and I meant Toolkit. A toolkit with garbage could be
> called toolkit, but it doesn't change it is useless; it cannot deal
> with syntax properly, i.e. conjugation etc. at this moment. Intended
> to be "reviewed and corrected by a human" doesn't assure it was reall
Ah, I omitted T, and I meant Toolkit. A toolkit with garbage could be
called toolkit, but it doesn't change it is useless; it cannot deal
with syntax properly, i.e. conjugation etc. at this moment. Intended
to be "reviewed and corrected by a human" doesn't assure it was really
"reviewed and correc
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> Aphaia, Shiju Alex and I are referring to Google Translator Toolkit,
> not Google Translate. If the person using the Toolkit uses it as it
> was _meant_ to be used, the results should be as good as a human
> translation because they've been
Aphaia, Shiju Alex and I are referring to Google Translator Toolkit,
not Google Translate. If the person using the Toolkit uses it as it
was _meant_ to be used, the results should be as good as a human
translation because they've been reviewed and corrected by a human.
-m.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 a
GT fails. At least for Japanese, it sucks. And that is why I don't
support it. GT may fit to SVO languages, but for SOV languages, it is
nothing but a crap.
Imagine to fix a 4000 words of documents whose all lines are sort of
"all your base is belong to us". It's not a simple thing as you
imagine
I've noticed many of English Wikipedia articles cite only English
written articles even if the topics are of non-English world. And
normally, specially in the developing world, the most comprehend
sources are found in their own languages - how can those articles be
assured in NPOV when they ignore
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:42 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> Because such a statement is factually inaccurate - en:wp *did* use the
> 1911EB as starter material.
..and for [[Accius]], with 150 views per month, not even a single word
has been added after three years.
--
John Vandenberg
___
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> 4) Include a list of most needed articles for people to create, rather
> than random articles that will be of little use to local readers. Some
> articles, such as those on local topics, have the added benefit of
> encouraging more edit
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 27 July 2010 09:36, Shiju Alex wrote:
>
>> Wiki communities like the biological growth of the wikipedia articles in
>> their wiki. Why English Wikipedia did not start building wikipedia articles
>> using *Encyclopedia Britannica 1911* edi
On 27 July 2010 09:36, Shiju Alex wrote:
> Wiki communities like the biological growth of the wikipedia articles in
> their wiki. Why English Wikipedia did not start building wikipedia articles
> using *Encyclopedia Britannica 1911* edition which was available in the
> public domain?
Er, are yo
After a couple of days of discussion, it has been concluded that
presently there is a sense to talk just about Dispute resolution
committee. Thus, I've made new RfC [1]. Feel free to join discussion
and add your ideas there.
[1] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Dispute_resolu
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Shiju Alex wrote:
> 1. Ban the project of Google as done by the Bengali wiki community (Bad
> solution, and I am personally against this solution)
> 2. Ask Google to engage wiki community (As happened in the case of Tamil)
> to find out a working solution.
Hello Alec,
at first thank you for the long mail. It would take me some time to
write my own answer but I don't want to make a hasty and unconsidered
reply. So if the answer comes a little late, please accept my honest
apolozies. My reaction to your mail is very complicated. There are a lot
>
> Google Translator Toolkit is particularly problematic because it
> messes up the existing article formatting (one example, it messes up
> internal links by putting punctuation marks before double brackets
> when they should be after) and it includes incompatible formatting
> such as redlinked t
stevertigo wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
> The idea is that most of en.wp's articles are well-enough written, and
> written in accord
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Google Translator Toolkit is particularly problematic because it
> messes up the existing article formatting (one example, it messes up
> internal links by putting punctuation marks before double brackets
> when they should be after) and it includes incompatible formatting
23 matches
Mail list logo
