[Foundation-l] Tragical dynamics: that run for the number of articles

[Mark Williamson]

First of all, that is for Arabic and Chinese, which probably have the
worst quality of Google Translate.

Second of all, Google consistently fared better than almost every
other system, a surprising feat for a very recently developed system.

Even if machine translation isn't completely accurate, it's often
enough to get an idea of the content of the page, and I know I have
learned about several topics through reading translated articles from
pl.wp.

Mark

On 28/06/2008, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/6/28 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk at googlemail.com>:
>
> > I have discussed my study with many people (one had similar results),
>  > but no one was so aggressive, Tomasz.
>  >
>  >> b)your own subconcious attitude toward various nations and Wikipedias
>  >
>  > ? Is this an accusation?
>  >
>
>
> No, I am just a scientist, so I have a tendency to be sceptical and
>  have basic knowledge about typical mistakes of doing statistical
>  research.Too small sample, no clear criteria of evaluating it, and you
>  did not tested the experimental error or replication of your method,
>  by comparing results from several experiments asking other people to
>  use your meaning of what "real" article is.
>
>  50 articles sample tested by one person, who for sure have its own
>  attitudes is not enough to say that this or another Wikipedia is
>  better or worse. Everyone has its own attitudes towards one or another
>  nation. It is very natural thing. And if there is no clear definition
>  of what is "real" article and what is not, and to evaluate this it was
>  used google machine translation (which according to NIST survey from
>  2006 is found to be OK in only around 49% cases) so I am quite sure
>  that your results cannot be taken seriously. You could have stastical
>  error at least around 15-20% (if not more), so the results 0,60 or
>  0,80 is in experimental error range.
>
>  Anyway it would be interesting to make better planned experiments to
>  evaluate the quality of Wikipedia articles, but for sure it has to be
>  done on larger sample, some sort of "hard" criteria or a group of at
>  least 10 researchers speaking diffrent languages and having different
>  cultural background when to use "soft, human based" criteria.
>
>
>  --
>  Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
>  http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
>  http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
>  http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html
>
>  _______________________________________________
>
> foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>