I think the answer is "Yes and No". As with any new
project/concept/idea/trial there are pro's and there are con's. The real
question is: Do the pro's outweigh the con's?
>From just reading what you linked (And not in any way being involved with
these language projects) and my own personal exper
Hello All,
Recently there are lot of discussions (in this list also) regarding the
translation project by Google for some of the big language wikipedias. The
foundation also seems like approved the efforts of Google. But I am not sure
whether any one is interested to consult the respective languag
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> Wikipedias are not for _cultures_, they are for languages. If I and
I'm surprised to hear that coming from someone who I thought to be a
student of languages. I think you might want to read an
article from today's Wall Street Journal, abo
Bence, that's a different topic - MAT (Machine Aided Translation), and
in the case of Bengali, I believe simply the use of a translation
memory system. Some of the comments on that page seem to be quite
misinformed, ranging from people who thought Google was inserting
unrevised machine translations
Wikipedias are not for _cultures_, they are for languages. If I and
1,000 other Americans suddenly learnt French (to the point of
native-level fluency) and decided to read and edit the French
Wikipedia, it would "belong" to us just as much as to anybody else.
This came up recently in the debate abo
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> No, not filtered according to what *we* think, but filtered according to what
> the local editor community in that project think is appropriate to their
> cultural context.
I am completely unsure how to react after this sentence: to laugh
> From: David Gerard
> > Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out
> the correct parameters for default IP access. Each language
> version of any project could make its own determination in
> this regard. Arabic, no Mohammed images; India, no sex and
> kissing; Dutch and German, the ful
On 25 July 2010 01:07, David Gerard wrote:
> This didn't save Encarta. They did this as a marketing move. They
> threw neutrality out the window as a marketing move [1]. That this is
> a blatant distortion was problematic enough that Britannica took them
> up on it [2]. I recall a discussion (I t
On 25 July 2010 00:46, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out the correct parameters
> for default IP access. Each language version of any project could make its
> own determination in this regard. Arabic, no Mohammed images; India, no sex
> and kissing; Du
Agreed. There's one wiki which artificially inflated the number of articles
it had via a bot (I forget the specific language). That's not a way to
increase the wiki's strength. There's an old phrase used on en-wiki; "africa
is not a redlink". It means that because we have articles on a lot of commo
--- On Sat, 24/7/10, David Gerard wrote:
> >> - That IPs are shown a mildly "censored" version,
> and that seeing the uncensored version of Wikipedia requires
> registering an account and setting the preferences up
> accordingly.
>
> > And this is where it all breaks down. Once you start
> to off
2010/7/24 Casey Brown :
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Pavlo Shevelo
> wrote:
>>> These days Google and other translate tools are good enough to use as
>>> the starting basis for an translated article
>>
>> No, it's far not true - at least for such target language as Ukrainian etc.
>>
>> So a
Thanks for the quick answer Sue.
I'll comment afterwards when I get Veronique further comments next week.
Florence
On 7/23/10 10:37 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> Hi Florence,
>
> I know Veronique plans to respond to your note, but I have two seconds
> right now, so I will add a quick comment below.
>
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
>> These days Google and other translate tools are good enough to use as
>> the starting basis for an translated article
>
> No, it's far not true - at least for such target language as Ukrainian etc.
>
> So any attempt of "push" translation wi
"If there are issues, they can be overcome. The fact of the matter is
that the vast majority of articles in English can be "pushed" over to
other languages, and fill a need for those topics in those languages." - if
there are vast swathes in other languages that aren't filled, it's normally
indica
As far as push translation goes, there are languages where it could almost
work and where it couldn't. (Consider the experience of the Google team with
the Bengali Wikipedia -
http://googletranslate.blogspot.com/2010/07/translating-wikipedia.html )
Bence
___
> These days Google and other translate tools are good enough to use as
> the starting basis for an translated article
No, it's far not true - at least for such target language as Ukrainian etc.
So any attempt of "push" translation will be almost the disaster...
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:57 AM,
Translation between wikis currently exists as a largely pulling
paradigm: Someone on the target wiki finds an article in another
language (English for example) and then pulls it to their language
wiki.
These days Google and other translate tools are good enough to use as
the starting basis for an
Sue Gardner wrote:
> Sorry to top-post.
>
> Google and Flickr actually handle this quite differently though, I
> think, Andreas. Going from memory -- I think that Google defaults to
> a "moderate" setting, but allows users to easily switch to an
> unfiltered setting. As long as they allow cookies
geni wrote:
> On 24 July 2010 18:28, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> - That IPs are shown a mildly "censored" version, and that seeing the
>> uncensored version of Wikipedia requires registering an account and setting
>> the preferences up accordingly.
>>
>
> And this is where it all breaks down. Once
This comment is intended to supplement Alec's, in the matter of labeling.
Those who are interested in restricting information are free to censor
Wikipedia content to meet their requirements, but there is no reason
why Wikipedia should do the job for them in any version of the
project, or by any fu
I've been posting quite a bit today, so I think I'll stop for a while. (I'd
hate to trigger the limits ;-)
But Alec, thanks for _your_ note, and don't worry about expressing skepticism
(even if it was mostly hyperbole to make a point). Vigilance is healthy :-)
Thanks,
Sue
-Original Messag
Sorry to top-post.
Google and Flickr actually handle this quite differently though, I think,
Andreas. Going from memory -- I think that Google defaults to a "moderate"
setting, but allows users to easily switch to an unfiltered setting. As long as
they allow cookies, users don't need to be reg
Hi Sue--
Thank you so so much for that reply, it was really really appreciated.
> I also wanted to say -- you know in your post where you speculate about why
> this is
> happening now, is it because of the fundraising, has someone offered board
> members jobs,
> etc. (I know you were mostly non
On 24 July 2010 18:39, geni wrote:
> On 24 July 2010 18:28, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> - That IPs are shown a mildly "censored" version, and that seeing the
>> uncensored version of Wikipedia requires registering an account and setting
>> the preferences up accordingly.
> And this is where it al
On 24 July 2010 18:28, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> - That IPs are shown a mildly "censored" version, and that seeing the
> uncensored version of Wikipedia requires registering an account and setting
> the preferences up accordingly.
>
And this is where it all breaks down. Once you start to offer a
p
Thanks Alec. I wouldn't like to see Wikipedia fork either.
Excirial's suggestion -- which I understand to mean enabling readers to
self-censor the type of content that offends them, or that they don't want
their children to see -- strikes me as the way we can have our cake and eat it.
It's als
Alec, thanks for making that post. I know people have had these discussions for
a long time (I've read lots of them), but I really appreciate you writing a
long explanation of what you think.
The "no censorship" people don't tend to want to lay out their full position --
because they already ha
I have no idea whether anything in here is productive or just
reiteration of the same old themes. I doubt it will be coherent or
persuasive, but this discussion is too important not to try to say
something. Opinions were solicited, so here's such an opinion.
I don't really know if a discussion
Interesting blog post here which is really about the future of
journalism but has implications for Wikipedia too.
"The Federal Trade Commission suggests that copyright law could be
expanded to limit the right of aggregators to republish reported facts
within a specific time period, a change known
George Herbert wrote:
> Is there in fact sufficient evidence that this is a topic that the
> Foundation must, or should, engage in actively at this time?
>
> I know why the Foundation has an inclination to get involved - people
> ask about it, and some very uncomfortable stuff finds its way into
>
31 matches
Mail list logo
