Perhaps at this point the rest of the committee could share thoughts and move towards a decision.
I submit further attempts to point out the problem to Gerard would have diminishing returns. A. On Mon, 21 Sep 2020, 08:18 Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/valid#Translations > > On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 17:39, MF-Warburg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
