"Siebrand Mazeland" <s.mazeland(a)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
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.
<http://blog.wegge.dk> - Her hænger jeg også ud.
<http://geowiki.wegge.dk/wiki/Forside> - Alt om geocaching.
Bruger du den gratis spamfighther ser jeg kun dine indlæg *EN* gang.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.