Aphaia, any machine translation system that produces even remotely comprehensible results should be able to be used in machine-aided translation. It is reduced to low utility if the output is complete gibberish, however this doesn't seem to be the case; regardless, it's possible to turn off automatic translation and the system can be used merely as a translation memory system, which would be useful in case the automatic translation actually did produce gibberish. Still useful, I think, because it automatically breaks text into segments and is at least *intended* to preserve formatting (this seems to be an issue for WP articles) without requiring users to re-type every single wikilink.
-m.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your clarification, Node.ue, I know it because I attended their presentation on Wikimania. It is an ambitious project I'd like to see it growing, but at this moment they seem to have a serious problem in its system. They seem to use English as a stem language, and assumes all translations are first done into English and then to another language. On the other hand, at least on major non-English Western language Wikipedia some amount of translations (1/3 IIRC) are not related to English.
If you think it works for you, it's fine, but please be aware it might not work for non-English speakers as well as for you.
Cheers,
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Aphaia, a great deal of confusion has been created with regards to this project. I hope you'll allow me to attempt to clear it up.
These are NOT articles that were translated directly by Google Translate. Rather, they were created using Google Translator Toolkit, which requires human intervention by a speaker of the language - someone to check and correct every single sentence translated, in the case of languages where Google already has machine translation, or to write entirely new _human_ translations, in the cases where no Google Translate module exists (for example, Tamil), with the aid of Translation Memory software.
I currently work as a translator and have found that Google Translator Toolkit is great for speeding up and improving the consistency of translations, and at least the results of my work are usually better with it than they would be without (I'm glad for the consistency - if I'm translating a large document, I'd like to make sure to translate the same phrases the same way every time they occur rather than using slightly different wording the second time around). Since they're revised and corrected by a human, they _should_ have the same level of grammatical correctness, comprehensibility and translation quality as a pure human translation. If they don't, this is the fault of the person using the toolkit, not the software itself.
-m.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Jon Davis wiki@konsoletek.com wrote:
I think the answer is "Yes and No". As with any new project/concept/idea/trial there are pro's and there are con's. The real question is: Do the pro's outweigh the con's?
From just reading what you linked (And not in any way being involved with these language projects) and my own personal experiences of how I work on Wikipedia. Yes, I think it is a good thing overall.
From what I've seen, it is much easier to convince someone who has never edited, to fix grammatical, spelling or other "simple" mistakes. Generally people don't dive in and write/translate entire articles - it is simply too high of a barrier to entry. These pre-translated articles give people an "in", they are already there, and have obvious errors that are easy to fix.
In my experience at Transcom and my own as translator, people appreciate pre-translated articles only in a good quality, there are pre-translations in too bad quality which contains too many obvious errors not easy to fix in time frame.
I've seen several requests, both on meta and on language projects, to delete this kind of bad quality "translation" which people think better to scratch a new version.
And in my observation Google translation is still in this level in many languages. And even if you handle Western languages, unless one of them in English, results may be in poor quality (e.g. they cannot keep the distinction between tu/vous, du/Sie etc.)
Cheers,
More "ok" content is better than no content, at least if I have my druthers.
-Jon
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 23:12, Shiju Alex shijualexonline@gmail.com wrote:
Hello All,
Recently there are lot of discussions (in this list also) regarding the translation project by Google for some of the big language wikipedias. The foundation also seems like approved the efforts of Google. But I am not sure whether any one is interested to consult the respective language community to know their views.
As far as I know only Tamil, Bengali, and Swahili Wikipedians have raised their concerns about Google's project. But, does this means that other communities are happy about Google efforts? If there is no active community in a wikipedia how can we expect response from communities? If there is no response from a community, does that mean that Google can hire some native speakers and use machine translation to create articles for that wikipedia?
Now let us go back to a basic question. Does WMF require a wiki community to create wikipedia in any language? Or can they utilize the services of companies like Google to create wikipedias in N number of languages?
One of the main point raised by the supporters of Google translation is that, Google's project is good *for the online version of the language*.That might be true. But no body is cared to verify whether it is good for Wikipedia.
As pointed out by Ravi in his presentation in Wikimania, ( http://docs.google.com/present/view?id=ddpg3qwc_279ghm7kbhs), the Google translation of wikipedia articles:
- will affect the biological growth of a Wikipedia article - will create copy of English wikipedia article in local wikis - it is against some of the basic philosophies of wikipedia
The people outside wiki will definitely benefit from this tool, if Google translation tool is developed for each language. I saw the working example of this in Poland during Wikimania, when some people who are not good in English used google translator to communicate with us. :)
Apart from the points raised by Ravi in his presentation, this will affect the community growth.If there is no active wiki community, how can we expect them to look after all these junk articles uploaded to wiki every day. When all the important article links are already turned blue, how we can expect any future potential editors. So according to me, Google's project is killing the growth of an active wiki community.
Of course, Tamil Wikipedia is trying to use Google project effectively. But only Tamil is doing that since they have an active wiki community*. Many Wiki communities are not even aware that such a project is happening in their wiki*.
I do not want to point out specific language wikipedas to prove my point. But visit the wikipedias (especially wikipedias* that use non-latin scripts*) to view the status of google translation project. Loads of junk articles are uploaded to wiki every day. Most of the time the only edit in these articles is the edit by its creator and the inter language wiki bots.
This effort will definitely affect community growth. Kindly see the points raised by a Swahali Wikipedian< http://muddybtz.blog.com/2010/07/16/what-happened-on-the-google-challenge-th...
.
Many Swahali users (and other language users) now expect a laptop or some other monitory benefits to write in their wikipedia. That affects the community growth.
So what is the solution for this? Can we take lessons from Tamil/Bengali/Swahili wikipedias and find methods to use this service effectively or continue with the current article creation process.
One last question. Is this tool that is developing by Google is an open source tool? If not, we need to answer so many questions that may follow.
Regards
Shiju Alex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shijualex _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]] / KJ6FNQ http://snowulf.com/ http://ipv6wiki.net/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l