How are bad translations a valid resource? Am Sa., 19. Sept. 2020 um 12:01 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen < [email protected]>:
> Hoi, > First, a specific spelling stands for an article. It can be in any > language. Each lemma in Wiktionary has its own translations. So you can do > without descriptions and still have meaningful information. Yes, that only > works when you are at least bilingual. > > When a bot moves data between Wiktionaries, the validity of these > translations exists because of it being moved from one Wiktionary to > another. > > What is sad is that this is not understood or considered as a valid > resource. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > > On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 11:53, Jan Wohlgemuth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Gerard and others, >> hello greetings from the new guy. >> >> I have to object an "anything is better than nothing" argument. Let's >> just say the bot accesses an article "fork" and takes the first >> definition. With some luck, something like "a tool for eating" will then >> be translated as definition. That leaves out all other meanings of >> "fork", like when a road splits up into two, but ok, that is a >> completely different thread of discussion. But if "a tool for eating" >> becomes the new lemma instead of the translated definition, that's when >> the entries start becoming unusable, especially if translated again and >> again. The bot programmer's fallacy is that there are 1-on-1 equivalents >> in translation. Sometimes there are, more often there are not. Automated >> "translations" liek the ones used in this case can not pick up on >> one-to-many relations and can not adequately post them. Another thing is >> register of synonyms. We certainly do not want any curse words to be >> listed as the general term for certain body parts etc. This needs to be >> verified by people who speak both languages or at least can make sure >> the entry makes sense in the metalanguage (here Malagasy). >> The review has shown that the output of these bot "translations" in >> Malagasy Wiktionary are not good. Some of them might be acceptable (by >> chance), but the majority must be considered questionable. The least >> that should be done is mark them as unpatrolled bot translations and >> hope that some speaker can check the accuracy. >> >> Greetings from Depok, >> Jan (Janwo) >> >> >> Am 18.09.2020 22:12, schrieb Gerard Meijssen: >> > 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 >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
