Hoi,
I understand the problem. The definitions are generated by machine
translations. This is presented as an unredeemable issue and I disagree
with that. I have provided arguments why this is not great but not
something that makes it unusable. You do not need to agree with me and you
are invited to convince me. But so far there has been a lack of arguments
because it is thought to be obvious.
As you may know, I have quite a lot of experience with Wiktionary and with
lexical work in a digital setting.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 15:08, Asaf Bartov <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
