"Siebrand Mazeland" s.mazeland@xs4all.nl writes:
What is preferable: An authoritative MediaWiki localisation that is 99.9% accurate, but which costs $300,000 a year to maintain? Or a MediaWiki localisation that is 95% accurate, but which costs maybe $5,000 a year to maintain? And that, on this much smaller budget, will grow more accurate every year? And that, because it does not demand perfect accuracy, is able to cover a much broader range of topics? And that, on top of this, is free?
You are missing the point entirely.
Around new year, you told the world how superior the translatewiki process was, and implicit how bad a translation was the result of individual translators. This is the reason I have no intentions whatsoever of doing anything else than proving how wrong that statement was. My translation work until that point was, and still is, fee, so I fail to understand the point of your different dollar amounts.
I will continue pointing out those hilarious examples of worse-than-none translations that ensues from the naive thought that anyone will ever proofread a translation, when it has first been marked as translated. There are many more similar examples, and as you can see, this particular instance is more than two months old.