It allows you to edit the translation, which in turn helps the translation
service improve (Google translate is not structure-based. It learns
translations from mass input)
Plus, it allows you to import Wikipedia articles.
Manish*Earth*
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manishearth>Talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Manishearth>
• Stalk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Manishearth>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Ramesh N G <rameshng(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I have tried the google translator to translate some
en article into
Malayalam. around 5, 6.
The difficulty which I felt was the word to word translation. We have
a difference in style. Though we translate content of lot en wiki
articles to ML, we dont do it as a word by word. we need to change the
sentence, or sometimes the entire explanation in the way we write the
ml articles.
I left that option of google translator for ml wiki now.
regards
Rameshng
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Shiju Alex <shijualexonline(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Ravi,
Here is my view on your questions.
However, a majority of the Tamil Wiki community
is showing stiff
resistance for this operation.
I too support them :). Word-to-word translation is not good from the
reader
point of view. It may kill the project also.
1. Is Paid editing against Wikipedia principles
or spirit?
Yes, according to me.
> 2. Besides the article count etc., Wiki is first of all a vibrant and
> healthy community of like minded individuals interacting on a friendly
note.
> This is very important in a small community
especially. But this
operation
creates a
divide like regular Wikipedians Vs Google Translators. User -
User interaction has changed to User - >
Google - > Translation team
coordinator interaction. From friendly reminders we have reached a
complaining stage.
Is this good for the community in the long run?
No it is not good for the community or for wiki.
> 3. Who benefits more from this operation? Google or Wiki? Even if it is
> assumed that it will serve the language ultimately, who has the control
in
> this operation? Of course, the Wiki
communities have the control but
they
> haven't exercised yet.
>
> This can hardly be considered partnership or collaboration. Google has
not
been
transparent on this so far.
Of course. Google will benefit more. Wiki will get many artificial
word-to-word translated articles from which the readers will run away.
Google will enhance their English to Tamil translator tool through this
exercise.
> 4. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and Wikipedians contribute out of
free
will. Is
this free will ensured for the Google Translators? (choice of
articles, translation style, work load, tool for translation etc.,)
No. since they are translating articles for money. And wikipedians will
not
have time to go through each and every word that
they translate. I think
Tamil wikipedians need to concentrate more on tamil wikipedia article
contest now. So who will review the Google translated articles.
5. Use of Google translation kit is not wrong per
se. But the Kit is
partly responsible for many of the issues. Is it right to continue using
this without cleaning up existing articles?
I am against any type of word to word translation of English Wiki
articles
to any other language. We have tried this
Malayalam Wikipedia 3 years
before. We discontinued that since we found that exercise is creating
artificial articles which is not good from the reader point of view.
> 6. Not all en wiki articles are the best. Some have factual errors and
> some have bias. Especially, articles on culture, politics etc., Is it
good
to
translate them as it is? A paid translator can hardly be expected or
allowed to correct them.
Your concern is true.
> 7. Style of English and Style of Indian languages are quite different.
> Since the translation is done through the kit, we can see literal
> translations resulting in a dry or artificial style in the local
language.
> This can harm the nature of the local
language in long run. Translation
is
OK but
not everywhere and as it is.
True. I already mentioned this above.
> 8. IS THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION AWARE OF THIS OPERATION ? WHAT IS ITS
VIEW?
> Its view need not be binding on the local
community. Nevertheless it
will be
interesting to know.
It is the local wiki community to decide about this.
> 9. WHY HASN'T GOOGLE ANNOUNCED ABOUT THIS PROJECT OPENLY YET? Google has
> emphasized many times that it doesn't create information but only
organizes
> it. Whenever it showed hints of creating
information, it was highly
noted
> with concern. This operation is a clear move
towards information
creation.
Since they are not sure whether this project will happen.
On the outset, this looks like a good gesture
from Google to Indian
language Wikis. But it should also be noted in the context Google and
Wikmedia are both powerful entities in the Internet and one's effect on
another should be watched.
Google's only aim is to enhance their English- Indian language translator
tools. All other discussions are the ways to achieve that aim.
Shiju
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Ravishankar <ravidreams(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> An update on the Google translated articles issue in Tamil Wiki.
>
> We exchanged few emails with the Google team and had a conference call
> once and the progress so far has been:
>
> * Google gets our approval on article topics before translating.
> * Some of the software issues have been promised to be addressed (too
many
> red links etc.,)
> * One or two co-coordinators from the translation team are checking the
> talk page discussions and making needed changes. But if there are no
talk
> page suggestions the articles are virtually
unattended.
>
> However, a majority of the Tamil Wiki community is showing stiff
> resistance for this operation. Besides the quality of translation we are
> concerned about this on a philosophical note.
>
> We would like to seek the opinion of the larger Indian Wiki community on
a
> philosophical angle in this issue. It will be
definitely helpful before
we
> decide the next step:
>
> 1. Is Paid editing against Wikipedia principles or spirit?
>
> 2. Besides the article count etc., Wiki is first of all a vibrant and
> healthy community of like minded individuals interacting on a friendly
note.
> This is very important in a small community
especially. But this
operation
creates a
divide like regular Wikipedians Vs Google Translators. User -
> User interaction has changed to User - > Google - > Translation team
> coordinator interaction. From friendly reminders we have reached a
> complaining stage.
>
> Is this good for the community in the long run?
>
> 3. Who benefits more from this operation? Google or Wiki? Even if it is
> assumed that it will serve the language ultimately, who has the control
in
> this operation? Of course, the Wiki
communities have the control but
they
> haven't exercised yet.
>
> This can hardly be considered partnership or collaboration. Google has
not
> been transparent on this so far.
>
> 4. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and Wikipedians contribute out of
free
> will. Is this free will ensured for the
Google Translators? (choice of
> articles, translation style, work load, tool for translation etc.,)
>
> 5. Use of Google translation kit is not wrong per se. But the Kit is
> partly responsible for many of the issues. Is it right to continue using
> this without cleaning up existing articles?
>
> 6. Not all en wiki articles are the best. Some have factual errors and
> some have bias. Especially, articles on culture, politics etc., Is it
good
> to translate them as it is? A paid translator
can hardly be expected or
> allowed to correct them.
>
> 7. Style of English and Style of Indian languages are quite different.
> Since the translation is done through the kit, we can see literal
> translations resulting in a dry or artificial style in the local
language.
> This can harm the nature of the local
language in long run. Translation
is
> OK but not everywhere and as it is.
>
> 8. IS THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION AWARE OF THIS OPERATION ? WHAT IS ITS
VIEW?
> Its view need not be binding on the local
community. Nevertheless it
will be
> interesting to know.
>
> 9. WHY HASN'T GOOGLE ANNOUNCED ABOUT THIS PROJECT OPENLY YET? Google has
> emphasized many times that it doesn't create information but only
organizes
> it. Whenever it showed hints of creating
information, it was highly
noted
> with concern. This operation is a clear move
towards information
creation.
On the outset, this looks like a good gesture from Google to Indian
language Wikis. But it should also be noted in the context Google and
Wikmedia are both powerful entities in the Internet and one's effect on
another should be watched.
Regards,
Ravi
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l