Brian wrote:
I hold the same sort of pragmatic view. In the absence of freely licensed
content encoded in a free format we should accept free content in any
format. I think it would take a revolution within the Foundation staff and
the most vocal parts of the community (note that I did not say
Pretty sure we are saying the same thing - what part of my comment struck
the wrong chord with you?
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Brian wrote:
I hold the same sort of pragmatic view. In the absence of freely licensed
content encoded in a
Brian wrote:
Pretty sure we are saying the same thing - what part of my comment struck
the wrong chord with you?
I think it is the we should accept free content in any format.
bit. ;-)
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Brian
How is that different from:
[...] if there is content that is *only* encumbered by the encoding, we
should embrace [...]
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Brian wrote:
Pretty sure we are saying the same thing - what part of my comment struck
Brian wrote:
How is that different from:
[...] if there is content that is *only* encumbered by the encoding, we
should embrace [...]
You forgot the bit about liberating it.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Brian wrote:
Yes, but you also said:
The one thing I would say is that gettin unencumbered
material that was only encumbered by the encoding it was
being carried by to formats that are free, is a net plus, no
matter if it meant we were also carrying the encumbered
format version.
I'm quite sure that the net
All,
after some internal discussion with the licensing update committee,
I'm proposing the following final site terms to be implemented on all
Wikimedia projects that currently use GFDL as their primary content
license, as well as the relevant multimedia templates:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 03:31, Chen Minqicnchenmi...@gmail.com wrote:
AFAIK, the software [1] they may use, does not block Wikipedia yet. I think
Doesn't seem to matter as it is told to be updated remotely. It may
block anything in any minute for no reason whatsoever.
g
Michael Dale wrote:
hmm.. it will be a one-two click install directly from the upload page.
(if the user is using Firefox). Then it works exactly the same as the
existing upload interface only it transcodes the video as it uploads
Yea it would be good to support both; and yes we should
Google has built in support for using its machine translation technology to
help bootstrap human translations of Wikipedia articles.
http://translate.google.com/toolkit/docupload
The benefit to Google is clear - they need sentence-aligned text in multiple
languages in order to bootstrap their
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 23:42, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Google has built in support for using its machine translation technology to
help bootstrap human translations of Wikipedia articles.
http://translate.google.com/toolkit/docupload
The benefit to Google is clear - they need
On what basis do you make this extremely negative assessment?
Readability is the the same thing as ability to read.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 23:42, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Google has built in support for
Honestly, I should have learned by now to ignore comments like this. Google
is the leading world expert on machine translation and they think it's a
good idea. I understand why they think it's a good idea, you don't. You're
shooting straight from the gut.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Amir E.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Honestly, I should have learned by now to ignore comments like this. Google
is the leading world expert on machine translation and they think it's a
good idea. I understand why they think it's a good idea, you don't. You're
2009/6/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
Google has built in support for using its machine translation technology to
help bootstrap human translations of Wikipedia articles.
http://translate.google.com/toolkit/docupload
The benefit to Google is clear - they need sentence-aligned text in
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 00:26, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Honestly, I should have learned by now to ignore comments like this. Google
is the leading world expert on machine translation and they think it's a
good idea. I understand why they think it's a good idea, you don't. You're
I thought there would be some caveat.
They might be willing to fix this for us. We'd want to contact the
translation team directly since they are the ones who created the interface
to Wikipedia.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:54 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/9 Brian
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 00:54, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA
licensed.
/Brian
Under Google's TOS you cannot enter CC or GFDL produced by someone
else into the translation tool.
I couldn't dwelve into the TOS, but as I see it you start with a GFDL text
and end up uploading a text directly to Wikipedia; which implies that Google
is okay with their text being used that way (you don't have to copy-paste,
google uploads the text for you, although it is saved under your
This is a theory. Google has a different theory that is backed up by
results. The size of the sentence-aligned corpus determines the quality of
the translation. The algorithms are entirely secondary.
In the absence of a sentence aligned corpus one must be created. People want
good machine
2009/6/9 Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 00:54, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA
licensed.
/Brian
Under Google's TOS you cannot enter CC or GFDL
current level of sophistication of translation tools, especialy of
languages that do not belog to the same group as english, german,
french, etc. is completely useless.
Machine translations into slavic languages are to be deleted from wiki
immediatealy.
masti
W dniu 09.06.2009 22:42, Brian
I don't agree with this interpretation. Google provides an interface whereby
the user enters the URL to a Wikipedia article and Google imports the text
into their own service. The user does no importing.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:47 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/9 Amir E. Aharoni
2009/6/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I don't agree with this interpretation. Google provides an interface whereby
the user enters the URL to a Wikipedia article and Google imports the text
into their own service. The user does no importing.
I think the odds of you successfully arguing
2009/6/9 masti mast...@gmail.com:
current level of sophistication of translation tools, especialy of
languages that do not belog to the same group as english, german,
french, etc. is completely useless.
Machine translations into slavic languages are to be deleted from wiki
immediatealy.
In the absence of a specific argument against my argument, my argument holds
- Google imports the data into their own service and there is no
contradiction.
Suppose however that my argument did not hold - that when Google download's
data to their own servers on behalf of a user this section of
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
In the absence of a specific argument against my argument, my argument holds
- Google imports the data into their own service and there is no
contradiction.
Suppose however that my argument did not hold - that when Google
Google and the user entered into a completely different contract by agreeing
to operate on freely licensed content.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
In the absence of a specific
2009/6/10 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
Google and the user entered into a completely different contract by agreeing
to operate on freely licensed content.
Show me exactly where they entered into such an agreement.
Sane, non evil TOS service are not Google's strong point. Remember the
2009/6/10 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
You're choosing not to get it. I can't help that.
So you can't actually back up your assertion.
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Not only did you not provide a critique of my more general claim (that the
user does not enter into a contract with Google regarding Wikipedia's data)
but you have no provided any sort of well founded critique of this one.
You've basically said, in both cases, I don't believe that.
On Tue, Jun 9,
That's really neat, I'm glad they worked on Wikipedia first. I'm sure
they are open to working with the licensing issues, they seem to like
to use a rather restrictive one as their default almost without
thinking about it, which I think is what happened with chrome also.
I'm sure they will be open
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Amir E. Aharoniamir.ahar...@gmail.com wrote:
An unedited machine-translated text is likely to be speedily deleted
as patent nonsense, before copyvio is even considered.
--
אמיר אלישע אהרוני
Amir Elisha Aharoni
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
If it is deleted
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
Machine translation in its current status is so useless for anything
beyond ordering Opera Garnier tickets, that the copyright status of
its output is not quite relevant and i don't expect this to change in
the next fifty years.
34 matches
Mail list logo
