steve vertigo wrote:
...is a bit loosy-goosy.. It seems almost
technophobic,
I am hardly technophobic!
and it misses some points, namely !. the
general thrust of the wikipedia as collaborative, and
interactive
I don't see how this is related
-- 2. that something on the page is most
often better than *nothing on the page
A bad translation would make readers think the rest is of the same quality
-- 3. that
machine translation is improving at an extremely
rapid pace.
I'l believe it when I see it.
HUMANS have difficulty translating. It's a very imprecise art. A
computer would need to understand *meaning* to effectively translate
anything beyond very basic sentences. I HOPE Wikipedia articles are
written with a little more style than that!
4. this is the general consensus --that
the WP take upon itself a more international scope .
How do you get that from my point? I staunchly support WP's
international scope! Eg, I have been arguing for MONTHS we must move the
english pedia from www. to en. URL
Please can we drop this line of debate -- it's pointless.
Bring it back up when machine translation is viable.