<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/25/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">SJ</b> <<a href="mailto:2.718281828@gmail.com">2.718281828@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 11/25/05, angel rodriguez <<a href="mailto:angelrr7702@gmail.com">angelrr7702@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> I went to <a href="http://www.wikipedia.org">www.wikipedia.org</a> and I found that in English they had<br>
> 831000 articles but in other language like Spanish they only had 75<br>> 000. I understand that is difficult to find people that in the spare<br>> of their time do all the translation for one language to other.
<br><br>Please note that different language editions of Wikipedia are rarely<br>direct translations; they are most often written independently in each<br>language.<br><br>> The other day I tray other way,it was to use translate, a web page tools
<br>> from google( <a href="http://www.google.com/language_tools">http://www.google.com/language_tools</a>) from English to<br>> Spanish. I found this tool very useful because...<br>> ...in
reality I had 831 000 articles in<br>> Spanish. I want to know if there is a way to use this tools to make a<br>> more permanent translation of the majority of articles in English to<br>> another language<br><br>
The simple answer is "Yes" -- there might be a way to use tools like<br>Google's webpage-translator to help translators and writers with their<br>work; and to give readers more options when looking for content in
<br>their language. I would love to see something like this happen. It<br>would require coordination between the developers of Google's<br>translation tool and the developers of the Wikipedia interface[s].<br><br>Of course these kinds of machine translations are inferior to 'real'
<br>human translations, as Yann notes. But Google in particular has been<br>making strides in this area. Wikipedia would be an interesting<br>testbed for new automated translation tools, precisely because it has<br>original (not translated) content on the same topic in dozens of
<br>languages, for tens of thousands of topics.</blockquote><div><br>
<br>
Sometimes, as a bilingual (chinese-english) I found it useful to
translate from BabelFish first then manually edit the addition. Of
course this can be done by manually Wikipedians themselves. However I also see
that if everything is translated from English to other language the
perspective/originality for some current events like articles maybe gone.<br>
<br>
I would support translation tool for experimentation but also remain a bit wary about the cultural impacts of that.<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
xcathy </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">++SJ<br>_______________________________________________<br>Translators-l mailing list
<br><a href="mailto:Translators-l@Wikimedia.org">Translators-l@Wikimedia.org</a><br><a href="http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/translators-l">http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/translators-l</a><br></blockquote>
</div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>MPhil Candidate,<br>Department of Sociology,<br>The University of Hong Kong<br><a href="http://cathyma.net">http://cathyma.net</a>