> I don't know whether other wikipedias have similar policies, but on > the Italian Wikipedia an article which is just a machine translation > can be speedy deleted according to our policies. The reason is that > machine translations are not good enough and the autotranslated text > is too difficult to read, at least for Italian. It is true that as > Italian is not as used as a foreign language as others, native > speakers are not used to people writing in bad Italian (Bad English is > far more common) so it is natural to set a higher threshold.
Same in Ukrainian Wikipedia > I agree > that machine translations are a good starting point, For time being machine translations are good only as aid to comprehend/grasp articles, pointed by interwiki. On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Marco Chiesa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:57 AM, stevertigo <[email protected]> wrote: >> Translation between wikis currently exists as a largely pulling >> paradigm: Someone on the target wiki finds an article in another >> language (English for example) and then pulls it to their language >> wiki. >> >> These days Google and other translate tools are good enough to use as >> the starting basis for an translated article, and we can consider how >> we make use of them in an active way. What is largely a "pull" >> paradigm can also be a "push" paradigm - we can use translation tools >> to "push" articles to other wikis. > > I don't know whether other wikipedias have similar policies, but on > the Italian Wikipedia an article which is just a machine translation > can be speedy deleted according to our policies. The reason is that > machine translations are not good enough and the autotranslated text > is too difficult to read, at least for Italian. It is true that as > Italian is not as used as a foreign language as others, native > speakers are not used to people writing in bad Italian (Bad English is > far more common) so it is natural to set a higher threshold. I agree > that machine translations are a good starting point, but that means > that someone who knows the target language (it doesn't matter whether > as native or not) must fix the translation correcting for the typical > machine mistakes (such as translating person names, etc.) >> >> If there are issues, they can be overcome. The fact of the matter is >> that the vast majority of articles in English can be "pushed" over to >> other languages, and fill a need for those topics in those languages. >> > > I see a big risk that this may be perceived as cultural colonialism, > but that's something that already happens (some parts of the world > write more on Wikipedia than others). But somehow pushing from the > small wikis to the big ones is one of the best ways to get local > topics globally known. > > Cruccone > > _______________________________________________ > 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
