P.S. Chatting to Mark off-list about GTTK, and having experimented with other languages, it appears that GTTK quality varies widely depending on the language pair, and probably the source/target direction.
German, Hindi and Japanese are definitely handled poorly; some other language combinations seem to do much better.
A.
--- On Mon, 9/8/10, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Parallel text alignment (was: Push translation) To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 9 August, 2010, 2:37
I read that thread and noticed a
lot of confusion. One translator
admitted she never even tried it, but still had lots
of negative stuff
to say; more than one person said they found it useful
(see
Esperantisto's response), and other people seemed to
not realize there
was a difference between Google Translate and Google
Translator
Toolkit.
GTTK allows you to create your own translation memories, much like Trados or Wordfast. If there is nothing in your memory to correspond, however, you get pretty much the same translation that you get in Google Translate.
In that sense, Google Translate gives us a good indication of what Google's translators get when they start on a Wikipedia article.
You can all try this: go to a random Japanese or German or Hindi WP article, and paste the text into Google Translate to have it translated into your language.
This is what the translator will have to start from.
A.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l