My recommendation to Langcom is to participate in the laudable community discussion which aims at removing the erroneous pages.
Am Mo., 21. Sept. 2020 um 15:08 Uhr schrieb Asaf Bartov < [email protected]>: > 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
