Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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 interested in providing open content output in exchange for open content input? -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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 AM, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote: 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 interested in providing open content output in exchange for open content input? -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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 both cases, I don't believe that. Thatys because you've provided zero evidence to back your position. Have you even rad the TOS: By using Google Translator Toolkit (the “Service”), you agree to be bound by our Google Terms of Services located at http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS as well as these additional terms. 1. Your relationship with Google 1.1 Your use of Google’s products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the “Services” in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement) is subject to the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google. 2.1 In order to use the Services, you must firstly agree to the Terms. You may not use the Services if you do not accept the Terms. 2.3 You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google, or (b) you are a person barred from receiving the Services under the laws of the United States or other countries including the country in which you are resident or from which you use the Services. . By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. If if we took your highly non standard position that providing Google with a URL is not submitting the content the output is displayed by Google and you have no way to grant them the above rights over it for third party CC-BY-SA content. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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 sentence-aligned text in multiple languages in order to bootstrap their automated system. This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help people, etc... I'm sure this is now the most efficient way to produce high quality translations of Wikipedia articles en masse. We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA licensed. OK, after a bit of drama in this discussion, i actually tried this toolkit. First i tried to translate the Hebrew article [[שלום גד]] into English (that's Shalom Gad, one of my favorite Israeli musicians). Apparently, it can only translate from English. I am more interested in translating Wikipedia articles from Hebrew into English, so it was quite disappointing, but they'll probably fix it soon enough. Then i tried to translate [[Art critic]] from English into Hebrew. There were a few pleasant surprises, but on the whole the machine translation was bad to the point of being unusable. It is much easier to translate it using vi. Google want side by side translations. It is not quite possible. A grammar of a language is not just subjects, objects, tenses and adjectives. Google seem to ignore [[Text linguistics]] - rules which apply way beyond the word and the sentence. And these are *grammar rules*, not just style. (Disclaimer: The Department of Linguistics in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where i study, is very keen on this subject.) I *had* to make very deep changes to paragraph structure - not to mention sentence structure -, and not just because the Hebrew Wikipedia has a different MOS, but because it's the basis of the Hebrew language. A text without these changes would be next to unreadable. I doubt that a document which is changed so deeply is very useful to Google at this point. I certainly know that it is not useful to me - i gave up after two paragraphs. So yes, Google can revise the legalese of their TOS, but this is not a very urgent problem. The uselessness of the technology makes the TOS pretty irrelevant. -- אמיר אלישע אהרוני Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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 the results make it possible to understand more than 50% of the text (sometimes I'd say above 90%). While this is far from proper translation it is by no means _useless_, since its obvious use is to understand a completely foreign text to some extents. And I'd like to second that the quality has been really improving, whether the state of the art linguistic science backs its theory up or not. This is observation, and not theory. But I see this is an exaggeration contest, so I'll go back to the shadow. :-) grin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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 is clear - they need sentence-aligned text in multiple languages in order to bootstrap their automated system. This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help people, etc... I'm sure this is now the most efficient way to produce high quality translations of Wikipedia articles en masse. We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA licensed. OK, after a bit of drama in this discussion, i actually tried this toolkit. Then i tried to translate [[Art critic]] from English into Hebrew. There were a few pleasant surprises, but on the whole the machine translation was bad to the point of being unusable. It is much easier to translate it using vi. I tried translating [[Astronomy]] and [[Eothyrididae]] (at least, the part of it that is in English) to Serbian and was pleasantly surprised. Sure, literally every sentence needed major corrections, but for me it was still much easier to do that than to translate from scratch. I *had* to make very deep changes to paragraph structure - not to mention sentence structure -, and not just because the Hebrew Wikipedia has a different MOS, but because it's the basis of the This is then apparently the case of English→Hebrew translation working worse than English→Serbian (possibly due to Hebrew being a non-indo-european language)? I have never had to make any changes to paragraph structure, only occasionally changes to sentence structure (I'd say there were about 10% of sentences I had to change the structure of and another 10% that had uncommon structure but I let them slide). Hebrew language. A text without these changes would be next to unreadable. I doubt that a document which is changed so deeply is very While I would probably delete an article that would be dumped straight from a machine translation, I still find it fully understandable. To illustrate: Then i tried to translate [[Art critic]] from English into Hebrew. There were a few pleasant surprises, but on the whole the machine translation was bad to the point of being unusable. It is much easier to translate it using vi. translates to: Tada sam pokušao prevesti [[umetnički kritičar]] sa engleskog na hebrejskom. Bilo je nekoliko ugodnih iznenađenja, nego na ceo mašina prevod je loš do tačke da je neupotrebljiva. To je mnogo lakše prevesti preko VI. I would retranslate this to broken English li: Then i tried to translate [[Art critic]] from English into Hebrew's. There were a few pleasant surprises, than on entire machine's translation was bad to the point of being unusably. Much easier translated via VI. and the correct would be (I highlighted the changes): Tada sam pokušao prevesti [[umetnički kritičar]] sa engleskog na *hebrejski*. Bilo je nekoliko ugodnih iznenađenja, *ali u celini* *mašinski* prevod je loš do tačke da je *neupotrebljiv*. *Mnogo je* lakše prevesti *ga* *pomoću vi-ja*. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Let me agree with it completely (out of the shadow ;). This feature's aim is obviously to help understand totally alien texts to a certain [at least minimal?] extent. This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with 'translation/interpretation' in it's proper sense. It's a pair of crutches for those, who are otherwise helpless. ;) B. -Original Message- From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Peter Gervai Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:28 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles 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 the results make it possible to understand more than 50% of the text (sometimes I'd say above 90%). While this is far from proper translation it is by no means _useless_, since its obvious use is to understand a completely foreign text to some extents. And I'd like to second that the quality has been really improving, whether the state of the art linguistic science backs its theory up or not. This is observation, and not theory. But I see this is an exaggeration contest, so I'll go back to the shadow. :-) grin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l __ ESET Smart Security - Vmrusdefinmciss adatbazis: 4143 (20090610) __ Az |zenetet az ESET Smart Security ellenorizte. http://www.eset.hu __ ESET Smart Security - Vírusdefiníciós adatbázis: 4143 (20090610) __ Az üzenetet az ESET Smart Security ellenorizte. http://www.eset.hu ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
What I see as a great feature in the toolkit is the translation memory: in practice (after you switch of the machine translation), common phrases in Wikipedia articles - like external links, notes, history, early life etc. - are pretranslated once a human has already translated them; if more then one people start working on the same article separately, they can make use of the other users' translations and build upon them (without having to explicitly 'collaborate' or 'share' for this function to work). Also, if you were to translate [[Bird species 1]], [[Bird species 2]], [[Bird species 3]], I think you would get some very useful suggestions for translating [[Bird species 4]]. Best, Bence Damokos On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Bennó benn...@freemail.hu wrote: and totally alien texts to a certain [at least minimal?] extent. This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with 'translation/interpretation' in it's proper sense. It's a pair of crutches for those, who are otherwise helpless. ;) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 14:46, Bence Damokosbdamo...@gmail.com wrote: What I see as a great feature in the toolkit is the translation memory: in practice (after you switch of the machine translation), common phrases in Wikipedia articles - like external links, notes, history, early life etc. - are pretranslated once a human has already translated them; if more then one people start working on the same article separately, they can make use of the other users' translations and build upon them (without having to explicitly 'collaborate' or 'share' for this function to work). Maybe, but at the very best case it can work for very short passages. Two or three sentences at most. And it would be taken out of context. -- אמיר אלישע אהרוני Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 14:46, Bence Damokosbdamo...@gmail.com wrote: What I see as a great feature in the toolkit is the translation memory: in practice (after you switch of the machine translation), common phrases in Wikipedia articles - like external links, notes, history, early life etc. - are pretranslated once a human has already translated them; if more then one people start working on the same article separately, they can make use of the other users' translations and build upon them (without having to explicitly 'collaborate' or 'share' for this function to work). Maybe, but at the very best case it can work for very short passages. Two or three sentences at most. And it would be taken out of context. If you were working on the very same article, it would obviously be in context...; and the short phrases tend to be common, especially, considering that Google treats the target of the links separately which allows for creating a sort of glossary. Best, Bence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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 needed to translate a piece from Bulgariam Wikipedia article into Russian. I ended up with the manual translation even though I do no speak a word of Bulgarian (Russian is my mothertongue). The output of Google Language Tools (Bulgarian into English) was on substandard level. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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 nonsense, that will be a gross error by the administrator, at least in enWP. It is usually possible to roughly understand what is meant in a Google translation. That's enough to defeat speedy deletion. What these texts need is revision. I think of them essentially as an automated dictionary. According to the dry letter of the policies it may be an error, but the deletion logs show that it happens quite often. -- אמיר אלישע אהרוני Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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 “50 000 UAH” within a particular context are known; more of such things can arise unexpectedly. So, at least a good understanding both of the topic and the source language is a crucial prerequisite, and there should be a warning about it. I really don’t like the way they write “Wikipedia™” instead of simply “Wikipedia” — do they really have to emphasize the trademark status? Perhaps, after some time goes by, I will be able to make a tool to select all translations made that way on a wiki, which may help deleting purely nonsensical ones. — Kalan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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 funniest example I noticed is that flew was translated to Serbian as MaudDib :) (this has been corrected since). And yet I can not stress enough how much I find this service useful, both for personal use and to ease translation. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Britannica
I can not help share this with you. I was looking for the name devouard in a little tool I just discovered today (TouchGraph). And I was surprised to discover that the word devouard was highly linked to the Hoggar plateau (Ahaggar) in Algeria. I consequently clicked on the central point apparently refering to devouard. I found this page: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/9966/Ahaggar/9966rellinks/Related-Links Yeah, that's on britannica. There is a little picture on the top left hand side. Click on the picture. Now, check out http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hoggar3.jpg The resolution is rather low because these were picts taken by my husband and he did not give me permission to upload the high res ones he took. But frankly, I am super pleased to find out that one of the pict I uploaded 4 years ago are now featured in Britannica :-) Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Britannica
Дана Wednesday 10 June 2009 16:36:38 Florence Devouard написа: But frankly, I am super pleased to find out that one of the pict I uploaded 4 years ago are now featured in Britannica :-) And they made a honest effort to be GFDL-compliant. I wonder how many more such images are there. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Britannica
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Nikola Smolenskismole...@eunet.yu wrote: Дана Wednesday 10 June 2009 16:36:38 Florence Devouard написа: But frankly, I am super pleased to find out that one of the pict I uploaded 4 years ago are now featured in Britannica :-) And they made a honest effort to be GFDL-compliant. I wonder how many more such images are there. They've been doing this since sometime last year. I first noticed it in September: http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-are-your-wikimedia-commons-photos.html (at the bottom of the post is where Britannica comes up) I think I did a rough estimate a few months ago that Britannica had added somewhere in the thousands to ten-thousands range of images taken from Wikipedia or Commons (including both GFDL and CC). But they don't provide a link back to the sources and/or userpages, so I feel like they could do a better job of respecting the license terms. When an image is a attributed to a hyperlinked name (as most Commons images are), that would imply that the hyperlink ought to be part of the attribution when it's used on the web. Maybe the Foundation should contact them about this. -Sage (User:Ragesoss) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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 to study and fix. Not evil - just mysterious. And overhyped. -- אמיר אלישע אהרוני Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Bennó wrote: Let me agree with it completely (out of the shadow ;). This feature's aim is obviously to help understand totally alien texts to a certain [at least minimal?] extent. This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with 'translation/interpretation' in it's proper sense. It's a pair of crutches for those, who are otherwise helpless. ;) Sure, but even with 90% accuracy (which is still very low) one needs to remain aware of the limitations of machine translation. Seeing it as a crutch is a healthy approach. What needs to be discouraged is the dangerous techno-pop attitude that there is a machine solution for every situation, and that machines can find the magic substitute for common sense. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
I would just like to point out that every single critic has ignored the premise that I started this thread with: This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help people. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Bennó wrote: Let me agree with it completely (out of the shadow ;). This feature's aim is obviously to help understand totally alien texts to a certain [at least minimal?] extent. This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with 'translation/interpretation' in it's proper sense. It's a pair of crutches for those, who are otherwise helpless. ;) Sure, but even with 90% accuracy (which is still very low) one needs to remain aware of the limitations of machine translation. Seeing it as a crutch is a healthy approach. What needs to be discouraged is the dangerous techno-pop attitude that there is a machine solution for every situation, and that machines can find the magic substitute for common sense. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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 rape... In Italian to English, L'Italia became Well that is a correct translation :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: Sometimes cities are translated - Koper was translated to English from Slovene as Chicago and Kranj as Miami... of course Kranj is 100km inland and Miami is largely beachfront and the opposite with Chicago and Koper. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Brian wrote: I would just like to point out that every single critic has ignored the premise that I started this thread with: This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help people. I don't disagree with that point, but I often note in real life that many people who seek help want to substitute that help for any exercise of their own little grey cells. I have no problem with using a machine translation as a starting point because these translations are uncopyrightable beyond pre-existing copyrights. Ec On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: Sure, but even with 90% accuracy (which is still very low) one needs to remain aware of the limitations of machine translation. Seeing it as a crutch is a healthy approach. What needs to be discouraged is the dangerous techno-pop attitude that there is a machine solution for every situation, and that machines can find the magic substitute for common sense. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 20:01, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: I would just like to point out that every single critic has ignored the premise that I started this thread with: This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help people. That, again, would be Wikipedia, not Google. No-one knows how these Google algorithms work, so i can't really know how helpful i am. -- אמיר אלישע אהרוני Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update: Final steps
2009/6/9 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org: 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: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation Well the Terms for edit screen is unacceptably long The current English wikipedia copyright terms are You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL which clocks in at ten words. There are another 13 words of editing guidance. Your version clocks in at 112 words or a 380% increase. When dealing with such widely used interface elements the trick is minimalism. Moving on to the Project:Terms of use A Terms of use is a working document. Vision Statements can go elsewhere general public horrid apart from the fact it is flat out false (legal persons and governments are not normally considered general public). For compatibility reasons, we also ask you to license it under the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Not good at all. Firstly the reasons are unimportant and secondly we don't ask we require. Information for multimedia contributors I think you mean non-text media here (yes I'm aware this in turn creates issues with tables). Strictly speaking images are not on their own multimedia. Information for re-users Giving what is effectively legal advice is always kinda dicey. Getting it wrong worse still. Attribution of text: To re-distribute an article page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) Completely false. This at absolute best only applies to content created after June 15 with no content imported from non wikimedia sites. Attribution of rich media: Rich media files must be attributed in any reasonable manner consistent with the chosen license specified by the contributor(s). Reasonable to the medium or means. Kinda dicey. Should probably stick to must be attributed in a manner consistent with the chosen license specified by the contributor(s). btw chosen license specified by the contributor(s). is a horrific bit of phrasing. Attribution of externally contributed content yeah its a sensible sub-clause but it comes in the wrong place. Since the Attribution of text doesn't even consider the possibility of text that doesn't fall under it's remit you've got a nice internal contradiction in the TOS. Copyleft/Share and Share Alike: You start talking about pages here when before you were talking about articles. Consistent terminology should be used. Terms for multimedia files Another outright error. The eligible files definition claims say FAL (and more importantly GPL) are eligible for additional licensing. In practice that whole section would be better left to commons which has a fair number of people who really know what they are doing with regards to image licensing. Heh The the Licensing update/Implementation phrasing is actually so bad it release the wikipedia logo under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. All in all the whole things suffers from being sloppy and appears rushed. Poor and inconsistent phrasing, internal contradictions and legaly questionable assertions. The June 15 target is unrealistic at this point since some of the issues are going to be tricky to fix (an awful lot of thought has gone into the english Terms for edit screen over the years) or requires actual decisions. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] GLAM-WIKI needs you!
Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, (wikimedia-au, chapters-cultural-partnerships, foundation-l) The event that you have (hopefully) heard about, Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums and Wikimedia: finding the common ground is coming along apace! This is a Wikimedia Australia event, a world first for the Wikimedia movement, to bring together the cultural sector with the Wikimedia community to work out ways we can better collaborate I hope that it will form the basis for a long and productive global conversation over the years. It is to be held in Canberra at the Australian National War Memorial on the first Thursday and Friday of August. Did I mention it's free? See all the details here: glam.wikimedia.org.au (a tentative schedule will be published soon) Simply put - interest from the GLAM sector has been fantastic. In the one week since the registrations opened we have now allocated 25% of the seats (since about 10 minutes ago). This includes several federal government politicians/their advisers, directors of major institutions, representatives of national peak bodies and people from at least 4 countries. Seriously - I'm actually getting registration emails every few minutes at the moment, from some BIG names... But! The number of Wikimedians for those people to discuss the finer points with are still quite small. I really hope we can put on a good showing and demonstrate the diversity of skills and level of engagement in our community. Just as much as I hope the GLAM sector will learn from us, I hope that we can learn from them - and this required 2-way participation. So - if you have an interest in the cultural sector, and can make it to Canberra, Australia you would be most welcome to attend. If you can't, perhaps you'd like to follow along at the Museums Wikimedia Museum3.0 Ning http://museum30.ning.com/group/museumswikimedia page. If on twitter please use the phrase GLAM-WIKI http://twitter.com/#search?q=GLAM-WIKI (with the hyphen). Sincerely, (a very excited, and a little bit scared) Liam [[witty lama]] VP Wikimedia Australia -- wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with human translations of Wikipedia articles
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 what they try to say in the TOS is that the text will be used to build the statistical engine and you give Google the right to do so. That is, they provide the translation and you provide the corrections which is then released to them. John ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
