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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Jon Davis <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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-the-swahili-wikipedia/ >>>>> >. >>>>> 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 >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jon >>>> [[User:ShakataGaNai]] / KJ6FNQ >>>> http://snowulf.com/ >>>> http://ipv6wiki.net/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> foundation-l mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> 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 > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
