FYI,
Don't know if this is relevant
Gordo
From: Allen Gunn gun...@aspirationtech.org
To: icomm...@lists.ibiblio.org icomm...@lists.ibiblio.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Subject: [Icommons] Open Translation Tools 2009 - Call for Participants
Howdy iCommons friends,
If you are
Compare such text to a photo of a painting changed by some automatic
algorithm. The copyright of the painting is unchanged and the algorithm
gets no part of any new copyright, yet the person applying the tool
_can_ have a part in the copyright for the new derived work.
If you translate a work
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:57 PM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote:
Machine translations are not new work, neither derivatives, as it is
done by machines and not by humans.
This is probably the correct argument to make.
___
foundation-l mailing
There are two trends in machine translations; rule based translations
and statistical translations. Both have pros and cons. Rule based
translations seems to be possible to integrate with Wiktionary in such a
way that it can support Wikipedia. Statistical translations seems to be
possible to
Sorry for my english, its actually not a machine translation even if it
looks like that! ;p
John
John at Darkstar skrev:
There are two trends in machine translations; rule based translations
and statistical translations. Both have pros and cons. Rule based
translations seems to be possible to
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:37, John at Darkstarvac...@jeb.no wrote:
Google previously used Systrans engine, but now uses their own. Sort of,
there are some rumors about them using a open source statistical
translation engine.
The link is about Google Translate, I'm not sure about the rumor.
Probably a rule based solution is the easiest to get up and running for
small wikis, while a statistical solution will work for larger wikis.
That will make the system work sufficiently well that users will build
upon the initial
Brian wrote:
In the absence of a sentence aligned corpus one must be created.
It would be nice if such a corpus (or rather, the resulting
dictionary of translated words, phrases and sentences) could also
be open content. Are you in talks with Google about this,
Brian? Would they be
In talks with Google? Oh I wish ;)
There are lots of algorithms that do sentence alignment automatically. The
different language articles don't have to be identical for Google to align
them. So we've basically already got what they've got in terms of Wikipedia
data.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:05
2009/6/10 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
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
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 Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 00:54, mastimast...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Let me disagree. Hungarian is not in the same group by far, and
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
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
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
Just to confirm, yesterday I
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 06:22, David Goodmandgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
If it is deleted as
Such an approach has an critical flaw. I don’t know whether this
applies to, say, English—French translations, but it is known to be
present for cyrillic languages. Statistical approach sometimes
discovers false connections that result in factual errors. Examples of
“translating”, say, “50 USD” as
Kalan wrote:
present for cyrillic languages. Statistical approach sometimes
discovers false connections that result in factual errors. Examples of
“translating”, say, “50 USD” as “50 000 UAH” within a particular
context are known; more of such things can arise unexpectedly. So, at
The
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 19:29, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Of course these are now things that you are able to fix and which can be
shared with everyone.
Unfortunately it's Google, not Wikipedia. There's mysterious Google
code behind it all; not MediaWiki, whose code everyone is free
Дана Wednesday 10 June 2009 17:32:00 Mark Williamson написа:
Ljubljana was translated to English in earlier phases of the
software as rape... In Italian to English, L'Italia became
Well that is a correct translation :)
___
foundation-l mailing list
Thanks Nikola, I just laughed enough to last me for the rest of the week.
Mark
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Nikola Smolenskismole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Дана Wednesday 10 June 2009 17:32:00 Mark Williamson написа:
Ljubljana was translated to English in earlier phases of the
software as
Brian wrote:
Of course these are now things that you are able to fix and which can be
shared with everyone.
Sure, the funny errors are the most obvious and most easily fixed. The
problematic ones are more subtle, remain unnoticed, and more readily
spread misunderstanding.
Ec
On Wed,
Machine translations are not new work, neither derivatives, as it is
done by machines and not by humans.
Also Google will have a hard time claiming that because some
unidentified person added text or an url to a open service they now has
the right to do whatever they want with the text.
I guess
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.
46 matches
Mail list logo
