Content translation with Yandex is also a problem in Bengali Wikipedia.
Some users have grown a tendency to create machine translated meaningless
articles with this extension to increase edit count and article count. This
has increased the workloads of admins to find and delete those articles.

Yandex is not ready for many languages and it is better to shut it. We
don't need it in Bengali.

On May 3, 2017 12:17 AM, "John Erling Blad" <> wrote:

> Actually this _is_ about turning ContentTranslation off, that is what
> several users in the community want. They block people using the extension
> and delete the translated articles. Use of ContentTranslation has become a
>  rather contentious case.
> Yandex as a general translation engine to be able to read some alien
> language is quite good, but as an engine to produce written text it is not
> very good at all. In fact it often creates quite horrible Norwegian, even
> for closely related languages. One quite common problem is reordering of
> words into meaningless constructs, an other problem is reordering lexical
> gender in weird ways. The English preposition "a" is often translated as
> "en" in a propositional phrase, and then the gender is added to the
> following phrase. That gives a translation of  "Oppland is a county in…"
>  into something like "Oppland er en fylket i…" This should be "Oppland er
> et fylke i…".
> (I just checked and it seems like Yandex messes up a lot less now than
> previously, but it is still pretty bad.)
> Apertium works because the language is closely related, Yandex does not
> work because it is used between very different languages. People try to use
> Yandex and gets disappointed, and falsely conclude that all language
> translations are equally weird. They are not, but Yandex translations are
> weird.
> The numerical threshold does not work. The reason is simple, the number of
> fixes depends on language constructs that fails, and that is simply not a
> constant for small text fragments. Perhaps if we could flag specific
> language constructs that is known to give a high percentage of failures,
> and if the translator must check those sentences. One such language
> construct is disappearances between the preposition and the gender of the
> following term in a prepositional phrase. If they are not similar, then the
> sentence must be checked. It is not always wrong to write "en jenta" in
> Norwegian, but it is likely to be wrong.
> A language model could be a statistical model for the language itself, not
> for the translation into that language. We don't want a perfect language
> model, but a sufficient language model to mark weird constructs. A very
> simple solution could simply be to mark tri-grams that does not  already
> exist in the text base for the destination as possible errors. It is not
> necessary to do a live check, but  at least do it before the page can be
> saved.
> Note the difference in what Yandex do and what we want to achieve; Yandex
> translates a text between two different languages, without any clear reason
> why. It is not to important if there are weird constructs in the text, as
> long as it is usable in "some" context. We translate a text for the purpose
> of republishing it. The text should be usable and easily readable in that
> language.
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
>> wrote:
> > 2017-05-02 18:20 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad <>:
> >
> > > Brute force solution; turn the ContentTranslation off. Really stupid
> > > solution.
> >
> >
> > ... Then I guess you don't mind that I'm changing the thread name :)
> >
> >
> > > The next solution; turn the Yandex engine off. That would solve a
> > > part of the problem. Kind of lousy solution though.
> > >
> >
> > > What about adding a language model that warns when the language
> > constructs
> > > gets to weird? It is like a "test" for the translation. The CT is used
> > for
> > > creating a translation, but the language model is used for verifying if
> > the
> > > translation is good enough. If it does not validate against the
> language
> > > model it should simply not be published to the main name space. It will
> > > still be possible to create a draft, but then the user is completely
> > aware
> > > that the translation isn't good enough.
> > >
> > > Such a language model should be available as a test for any article, as
> > it
> > > can be used as a quality measure for the article. It is really a
> quantity
> > > measure for the well-spokenness of the article, but that isn't quite so
> > > intuitive.
> > >
> >
> > So, I'll allow myself to guess that you are talking about one particular
> > language, probably Norwegian.
> >
> > Several technical facts:
> >
> > 1. In the past there were several cases in which translators to different
> > languages who reported common translation mistakes to me. I passed them
> on
> > to Yandex developers, with whom I communicate quite regularly. They
> > acknowledged receiving all of them. I am aware of at least one such
> common
> > mistake that was fixed; possibly there were more. If you can give me a
> list
> > of such mistakes for Norwegian, I'll be very happy to pass them on. I
> > absolutely cannot promise that they will be fixed upstream, but it's
> > possible.
> >
> > 2. In Norwegian, Apertium is used for translating between the two
> varieties
> > of Norwegian itself (Bokmål and Nynorsk), and from other Scandinavian
> > languages. That's probably why it works so well—they are similar in
> > grammar, vocabulary, and narrative style (I'll pass it on to Apertium
> > developers—I'm sure they'll be happy to hear it). Unfortunately, machine
> > translation from English is not available in Apertium. Apertium works
> best
> > with very similar languages, and English has two characteristics, which
> are
> > unfortunate when combined: it is both the most popular source for
> > translation into almost all other languages (including Norwegian), and it
> > is not _very_ similar to any other languages (except maybe Scots).
> Machine
> > translation from English into Norwegian is only possible with Yandex at
> the
> > moment. More engines may be added in the future, but at the moment that's
> > all we have. That's why disabling Yandex completely would indeed be a
> lousy
> > solution: A lot of people say that without machine translation
> integration
> > Content Translation is useless. Not all users think like that, but many
> do.
> >
> > 3. We can define a numerical threshold of acceptable percentage of
> machine
> > translation post-editing. Currently it's 75%. It's a tad embarrassing,
> but
> > it's hard-coded at the moment, but it can be very easily be made into a
> > variable per language. If the translator tries to publish a page in which
> > less than that is modified, a warning will be shown.
> >
> > 4. I'm not sure what do you mean by "language model". If it's any kind
> of a
> > linguistic engine, then it's definitely not within the resources that the
> > Language team itself can currently dedicate. However, if somebody who
> knows
> > Norwegian and some programming will write a script that analyzes common
> bad
> > constructs in a Wikipedia dump, this will be very useful. This would
> > basically be an upgraded version of suggestion #1 above. (In my spare
> time
> > as a volunteer I'm doing something comparable for Hebrew, although not
> for
> > translation, but for improving how MediaWiki link trails work.)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to:
> > Unsubscribe:,
> > <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to