Hoi,
Wiktionaries true strength is not so much in its definitions, it is in the
translations that exist for a concept. When you take a concept in any
language, you have to have something to base it on. The words for a concept
in another language are always and at best similar to what was originally
defined for a concept in the original language. So when you take the
translations as used for a concept with a translated definition you have
something that is useful because it has its value against the labels, the
words for that concept in all the other languages.
The point is that most often a decent machine translation gets there most
of the time. Without it we offer nothing at all.
As a movement we are terrible at supporting other languages. We don't
really. What we have is mostly a stamp collection and our support is that
you can translate from English. When we want dictionary services in all our
languages, we have to be smart about it. We are not smart about it, that
has been our choice. When we have a tool like Commons with 64.236.643
freely usable media files, we have hidden it in English. Now that we can
open up its use in other languages we don't.
That is what is terrible.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 21:17, Jon Harald Søby <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Perfect" is not good's only enemy, Gerard. "Terrible" is one as well. And
> this definitely seems on the terrible side.
>
> fre. 18. sep. 2020, 17:12 skrev Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]
> >:
>
>> Asaf,
>> That is not how I understand it. First, I do not mind bots. When
>> Wiktionaries have information on words in Malagasy, I am perfectly happy
>> for the translations to be copied from one Wiktionary to another. When the
>> descriptions are translated using machine translation, the question becomes
>> only slightly different.
>>
>> The question becomes about the quality of the machine translation. Now I
>> do not mind key words in Malagasy without definitions. With dodgy
>> translations it is ok because it is still better than providing nothing.
>> When the quality of the machine translation is such that it is
>> understandable but not quite there, I am of the opinion that it is much
>> better than providing nothing.
>>
>> The biggest problem I have with the notion of perfection is that it is
>> the enemy of the good. The good is to provide the best we can offer. When
>> it needs work, it is acceptable because it is a wiki.
>>
>> The biggest problem with language support is that products that are
>> perfectly functional like Special:MediaSearch are not promoted because "the
>> next iteration will be even better". It also shows the extend we have
>> moved away from our Wiki roots.
>>
>> The notion that a bot operator is not people... really...
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 16:33, Asaf Bartov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I am surprised you consider it "people add content", Gerard. It is
>>> explicitly *not* people adding content, but a bot using machine
>>> translation. Machine translation is problematic enough for just reading
>>> some text, but a machine-translated *dictionary* is literally worse than
>>> nothing. It is a travesty, and it is better to *not* offer dictionary
>>> entries in Malagasy than to offer machine-translated ones with zero human
>>> supervision.
>>>
>>> I encourage this committee to consider whether it is beneficial to the
>>> mission to allow this to continue.
>>>
>>> A.
>>>
>>> Asaf Bartov (he/him/his)
>>>
>>> Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities
>>>
>>> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
>>>
>>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
>>> in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 12:18 PM Gerard Meijssen <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> An error rate is expected when people add content, this is true for any
>>>> project. Given that the information is based on what other
>>>> Wiktionaries offer, from a Wikimedia point of view, no new errors are
>>>> introduced. What we do not have atm is a process where translations are
>>>> shared in one database. This is possible at OmegaWiki but that is outside
>>>> of WMF.
>>>>
>>>> From my perspective, a good effort as with any project it has its flaws.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> GerardM
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 20:54, MF-Warburg <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> FYI:
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_wiki_audit/Malagasy_Wiktionary
>>>>>
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Small_wiki_audit/Malagasy_Wiktionary
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Langcom mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Langcom mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Langcom mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Langcom mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
