Machine translation is unworkable to the degree that it is still not
reasonable to use it to provide multilingual content and expect it to
be reasonably correct.
If you believe otherwise, then where's your proposal to integrate all
language Wikipedias using these recent advances in MT?
I may be a member of teh UNDL foundation, but even such dream systems
as UNL only claim to be accurate 99% of the time (and so far, UNL has
its fair share of problems), and even when they are accurate the
things they produce often sound unnatural or awkward.
Mark
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 15:10:33 -0500, Stirling Newberry
<stirling.newberry(a)xigenics.net> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
As I said before, tagging of terms is one thing,
but when you get to
changing around grammar and word order, that is full-fledged machine
translation and it won't work, no matter how many times you attack me
personally.
Mark
You made your credibility an issue, and therefore my questioning of
your credibility is appropriate. As for "machine translation" being
unworkable - you should really catch up with the developments in the
field of machine translation.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l