Yes, of course if it's not actually reviewed and corrected by a human it's going to be bad. What I said was that if it's used "as it was meant to be used", the results should be indistinguishable from a normal human translation, regardless of the language involved because all mistakes would be fixed by a person. People often neglect to do that, but that doesn't make the tool inherently evil.
-m.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, I omitted T, and I meant Toolkit. A toolkit with garbage could be called toolkit, but it doesn't change it is useless; it cannot deal with syntax properly, i.e. conjugation etc. at this moment. Intended to be "reviewed and corrected by a human" doesn't assure it was really "reviewed and corrected by a human" to a sufficient extent. It could be enough for your target language, but not for mine. Thanks.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Aphaia, Shiju Alex and I are referring to Google Translator Toolkit, not Google Translate. If the person using the Toolkit uses it as it was _meant_ to be used, the results should be as good as a human translation because they've been reviewed and corrected by a human.
But if the program were being used by a human who speaks the language, wouldn't it be *pull* translation and not *push* translation?
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
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