There were two presentations on paid translation at Wikimania in Gdansk. I think that would be 2010? One by Google.org, the other by Google.com (charity and corporate wings).
I'm afraid my memory of the event is far from perfect. But some things stuck in my mind. As one would expect, many of the things that could go wrong had gone wrong. Translators were not recruited from the community and did not understand the need to interact with the community. The aims of the two projects were very different. .org wanted to make basic medical info available in a number of languages that were emerging on the Internet; .com wanted to give responses to common search terms in those languages. Bangla, Tamil and I think Telegu were among them. One, I think it was Bangla had banned a group of translators, on another an irate attendee explained that people who spoke his language did not want articles on Hollywood film stars: I suspect that shows a disconnect between search engine results and the wishes of wikipedians, it illustrates the concerns others have already raised re colonialism, and the difficulty of mixing volunteers and paid staff in one project. No surprise that one of the two projects was much more contentious than the other, and not just among Wikipedians on the target project. I can understand the frustration of a wikipedian volunteer who realises he is fixing for free work that someone else has been paid to do. I don't know whether the concern about Hollywood was just an inter generational thing, whether the people with access tohollywood films were representative of the young, or representative of the tech savvy verbally bilingual early adopters in that society and unrepresentative of the tens of millions in that language who were about to come online. But I do remember the "common search term" project being much more contentious than the medical one. My experience from here and several other part volunteer communities is that there are two golden rules to follow when mixing paid and unpaid staff. 1 Only pay people to do things that the volunteers want to have happen but aren't volunteering to do. 2 As much as possible recruit your paid staff from your community of volunteers. Sadly almost all my examples of getting this wrong come from this movement. Regards Jonathan / WereSpielChequers > On 24 Feb 2018, at 19:41, wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: > > Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > wikimedia-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Paid translation (Gnangarra) > 2. Re: Paid translation (Michael Snow) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 03:05:41 +0800 > From: Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid translation > Message-ID: > <CAD==kb+-mr3+rBBYC=mgp4ayklz-ajzqtefplyho6ur_+yk...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > this would be a good practical exercise to develop for WiR / WikiEd > programs in universities where they can engage with International Students > and local students studying additional languages as means of learning the > written nuances of the individual languages. Any funding would be better > utilised in enabling such programs where the flow on impact is more > likely{fact} to be lasting. Though I can see value in using a gift/reward > system for technically disadvantaged communities like the case presented > about Swahili . The focus would need to be on basic health, hygiene, > biology, science topics rather than more social or political topics. > >> On 25 February 2018 at 01:08, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'll reply to the most recent email just for laziness. >> >> I'm doubtful for a series of reasons, most of were already expressed in a >> better way by others: >> *a remuneration in terms of quantity will weaken the quality of >> translations unless there's a strong mechanism of quality verification >> requiring a quantity of resources comparable to translations themselves; >> *articles are the result of a long process which reflects cultural identity >> of different communities, I'm not confident with transferring them to a >> different "weaker" cultures. My usage of "weaker" adjective only focuses >> about the strength of a cultural presence on the Internet; >> *articles to be translated are at high risk of reflecting the cultural >> identity (and biases) of the Western culture; >> *finally I think paid translators would hardly turn into stable >> Wikipedians. >> >> IMHO some paid editing may be better exploited in order to digitalise texts >> of unrepresented cultures (wikisource) or preserving their vocabularies >> (wiktionary). >> >> Also those languages which are secondary for all their speakers should be >> dealt with in a different fashion. I, for one, am a native speaker of >> specific variant of Sicilian, Sicilian is a secondary language to any of >> its speakers. Honestly, I'd find pointless to read the biography of >> Leonardo da Vinci in Sicilian while I can find thousands of books about him >> in Italian. Also I find this kind of translation creates a fake "literary" >> language totally detached from reality: there's no "encaustic painting" in >> Sicilian, still a Sicilian article about Leonardo will invent one. >> >> As a general principle we should always collect, rather than create, >> knowledge. >> >> Vito >> >> 2018-02-24 16:30 GMT+01:00 John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com>: >> >>> My reply can be read as a bit more harsh than intended, it was merely a >>> statement about my present experience about translators in general. >>> >>> The problem with lack of contributors (and translators) in a specialized >>> area is that there is a small community, and within this community some >>> kind of selection is made. Each time a selection is repeated the >> remaining >>> group shrinks. Specialize the selection sufficiently many times and there >>> will be no contributors (or translators) left. It is simply a game of >>> probabilities. Thus, to make such a project work it must have a >>> sufficiently broad scope for the articles. Articles about public health >>> services will probably work even for a pretty small language group, but >>> specialized medical articles might create a problem. But then you find >>> a retired >>> orthopedic surgeon like Subas Chandra Rout… >>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I agree with John that it is very difficult to turn a translator into a >>> new >>>> editor. I also agree with Jean-Philippe that it is key to have >>> involvement >>>> of the local projects and preferable if they lead the efforts. Of the >>>> languages we worked in only one explicitly requested not to be >> involved / >>>> have translations from TWB. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:59 AM, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You can turn it around; give added credits for translations from >> small >>>>> language projects and into the larger ones, that is a lot more >>>> interesting >>>>> than strictly translating from the larger language projects. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Jean-Philippe Béland < >>>>> jpbel...@wikimedia.ca >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think the request for such projects should come from the >> concerned >>>>>> language projects, same for the list of articles. If not, in my >>> simple >>>>>> opinion, it is a form of coloniasm again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jean-Philippe Béland >>>>>> Vice President, Wikimedia Canada >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 9:40 AM John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com >>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Should have added that the remaining points are somewhat less >>>>> interesting >>>>>>> in this context. Preloading a set of articles is a bad idea, the >>>>>>> translators should be able to chose for themselves. Articles >> should >>>>> also >>>>>> be >>>>>>> pretty broad, not very narrow technical or medical, ie vertical >>>>> articles, >>>>>>> as the number of editors that can handle those will be pretty >>> small. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In particular: Do not believe you can turn a teanslator into a >> new >>>>>> editor! >>>>>>> You can although turn an existing editor into a translator. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 3:34 PM, John Erling Blad < >>> jeb...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) You must start with high quality content and thus all >> articles >>>> are >>>>>>>>> extensively improved before being proposed for translation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note that to much pressure on "quality" can easily kill the >>>> project. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3) The "Content Translation" tool developed by the WMF made >>> efforts >>>>>> more >>>>>>>>> efficient than handing around word documents. Would love to >> see >>>> that >>>>>>> tool >>>>>>>>> improved further such as having it support specific lists of >>>>> articles >>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> are deemed ready for translation by certain groups. Would also >>>> love >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> tool to have tracking metrics for these types of projects. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Didn't mention ContentTranslation, but it should be pretty >>> obvious. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4) We used volunteer translators mostly associated with our >>> partner >>>>>>>>> Translators Without Borders. One issue we found was that >>> languages >>>>> in >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> their are lots of translators such as French, Spanish, and >>> Italian >>>>>> there >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> often already at least some content on many of the topics in >>>>> question. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>> issue than becomes integration which needs an expert >> Wikipedia. >>>> And >>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> languages in which we have little content there are often few >>>>>> avaliable >>>>>>>>> volunteers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I used projects below 65k articles as an example, as the chance >>> of >>>>>>>> competing articles are pretty low. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 5) With respect to "paying per word" the problem is this would >>>>> require >>>>>>>>> significant checks and balances to make sure people are taking >>> the >>>>>> work >>>>>>>>> seriously and not simple using Google translate for the 70 or >> so >>>>>>> languages >>>>>>>>> in which it claims to work. We often had translations undergo >> a >>>>> second >>>>>>>>> review and the volunteers at TWB have to pass certain tests to >>> be >>>>>>>>> accepted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'n my original email I wrote "verified good translators". It >> is >>> as >>>>>>>> simple as "Has the editor contributed other articles at the >>>> project?" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 2:26 PM, James Heilman < >> jmh...@gmail.com >>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We learned a few things during the medical translation project >>>> which >>>>>>>>> started back in 2011: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1) You must start with high quality content and thus all >>> articles >>>>> are >>>>>>>>> extensively improved before being proposed for translation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2) A lot of languages want "less" content than is present on >> EN >>>> WP. >>>>>> Thus >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> moved to just improving and suggesting for translation the >> leads >>>> of >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> English articles. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3) The "Content Translation" tool developed by the WMF made >>>> efforts >>>>>> more >>>>>>>>> efficient than handing around word documents. Would love to >> see >>>> that >>>>>>> tool >>>>>>>>> improved further such as having it support specific lists of >>>>> articles >>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> are deemed ready for translation by certain groups. Would also >>>> love >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> tool to have tracking metrics for these types of projects. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4) We used volunteer translators mostly associated with our >>>> partner >>>>>>>>> Translators Without Borders. One issue we found was that >>> languages >>>>> in >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> their are lots of translators such as French, Spanish, and >>> Italian >>>>>> there >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> often already at least some content on many of the topics in >>>>> question. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>> issue than becomes integration which needs an expert >> Wikipedia. >>>> And >>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> languages in which we have little content there are often few >>>>>> avaliable >>>>>>>>> volunteers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 5) With respect to "paying per word" the problem is this would >>>>> require >>>>>>>>> significant checks and balances to make sure people are taking >>> the >>>>>> work >>>>>>>>> seriously and not simple using Google translate for the 70 or >> so >>>>>>> languages >>>>>>>>> in which it claims to work. We often had translations undergo >> a >>>>> second >>>>>>>>> review and the volunteers at TWB have to pass certain tests to >>> be >>>>>>>>> accepted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 6) I hired a coordinator for the translation project for a >>> couple >>>> of >>>>>>>>> years. >>>>>>>>> The translators at TWB did not want to become Wikipedians or >>> learn >>>>> how >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> use our systems. The coordinator created account like >> TransSW001 >>>>> (one >>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> each volunteer) and preloaded the article to be translated >> into >>>>>> Content >>>>>>>>> Translation. They than gave the volunteer translator the user >>> name >>>>> and >>>>>>>>> password to the account. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 7) Were are we at now? There are currently just over 1,000 >> leads >>>> of >>>>>>>>> articles that have been improved and are ready for >> translation. >>>> This >>>>>>>>> includes articles on the 440 medications that are on the WHO >>>>> Essential >>>>>>>>> List. We have worked a bit in some 100 languages. The efforts >>> have >>>>>>>>> resulted >>>>>>>>> in more than 5 million works translated and integrated into >>>>> different >>>>>>>>> Wikipedias. The coordinator has unfortunately moved on to his >>> real >>>>> job >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> teaching high school students. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 8) The project continues but at a slower pace than before. The >>>>>>> Wikipedian >>>>>>>>> and retired orthopedic surgeon Subas Chandra Rout has >> basically >>>>> single >>>>>>>>> handedly translated nearly all 1,000 leads into Odia a >> language >>>>> spoken >>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>> 40 million people in Eastern India. The amazing thing is that >>> for >>>>> many >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> these topics this is the first and only information online >> about >>>> it. >>>>>>>>> Google >>>>>>>>> translate does not even claim to work in this language. Our >>>>>> partnerships >>>>>>>>> with WMTW and medical school in Taipai continue to translate >>> into >>>>>>> Chinese. >>>>>>>>> There the students translate and than their translations are >>>>> reviewed >>>>>> by >>>>>>>>> their profs before being posted. They translate in groups >> using >>>>>> hackpad >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> make it more social. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am currently working to re invigorate the project :-) >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:51 AM, John Erling Blad < >>>> jeb...@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This discussion is going to be fun! =D >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A little more than seventy Wikipedia-projects has more than >>> 65k >>>>>>>>> articles, >>>>>>>>>> the remaining two hundred or so are pretty small. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What if a base set of articles were opened for paid >>> translators? >>>>>> There >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> several lists of such base sets. We have both the thousand >>>>> articles >>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> "List of articles every Wikipedia should have"[1] and and >> the >>>> ten >>>>>>>>> thousand >>>>>>>>>> articles from the expanded list[2]. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lets say verified good translators was paid about $0.01 per >>> word >>>>>>> (about >>>>>>>>> $1 >>>>>>>>>> for a 1k-article) for translating one of those articles into >>>>> another >>>>>>>>>> language, with perhaps a higher pay for contributors in >>>> high-cost >>>>>>>>>> countries. The pay would also have to be higher for >> languages >>>> that >>>>>>> lacks >>>>>>>>>> good translation tools. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I believe this would be an _enabling_ activity for the >>>>> communities, >>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> without a base set of articles it won't be possible to >> build a >>>>>>>>> community at >>>>>>>>>> all. By not paying for new articles, and only translating >>>>>>>>> well-referenced >>>>>>>>>> articles, some of the disputes in the communities could be >>>>> avoided. >>>>>>>>> Perhaps >>>>>>>>>> we should also identify good source articles, that would be >> a >>>>> help. >>>>>>>>>> Translated articles should be above some minimum size, but >>> they >>>>> does >>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> have to be full translations of the source article. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A real problem is that our existing lists of good articles >>> other >>>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>>>> should have is pretty much biased towards Western World, so >>> they >>>>>> need >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>>>> of adjustments. Perhaps such a project would identify our >>>> inherit >>>>>>> bias? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_ >>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia_should_have >>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_ >>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia_should_have/Expanded >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>>>>>>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>>>>>>>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ >>>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= >>>>>> unsubscribe> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> James Heilman >>>>>>>>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >>>>>>>>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >>>>>>>>> i/Wikimedia-l >>>>>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ >>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >>>>>> , >>>>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= >>>>> unsubscribe> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ >>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= >>> unsubscribe> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>>>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ >>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= >> unsubscribe> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ >> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> James Heilman >>>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >> wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > -- > GN. > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order > here > <https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8> > . > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:41:11 -0800 > From: Michael Snow <wikipe...@frontier.com> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid translation > Message-ID: <1bd83b4d-8be3-2eec-c330-57d28a605...@frontier.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > I think the experience I've had with translating matches up well with > the conclusions James has outlined. Even though I'm more likely to > translate content into English rather than out of English, the > principles still hold. > > Trying to produce a translation without quality content in the original > article is a frustrating and pointless exercise for the translator. > Unless the original meets certain standards, it would be better and > easier to write the article from scratch in the "destination" language > and translate it back to the "source" language. > > Assuming we have a good article in the original language, I definitely > encourage translators to use editorial judgment in what they carry over. > Focusing on the lead section is one possible approach. In general, > because we are trying to translate information and not literature, we > should have different priorities. It is more important that the > translation maintain fidelity to the facts than to the language and > structure of the article. Sometimes it makes sense to pass over certain > details, even a beginning-to-end translation might come out a bit > condensed. As one reason for this, making some details accessible to the > cultural audience in the new language can at times require a fair amount > of elaboration, more than may be ideal for the context under discussion. > The best approach to use is one of adaptation as much as translation. > > I don't have strong feelings about whether a paid model will work, or > work better than purely volunteer activity, but I would be open to > seeing a trial. The essential thing is that we find translators who can > understand and apply standards of quality in their work, much like we > would expect if they were editors writing entirely new articles. > > --Michael Snow > >> On 2/24/2018 5:26 AM, James Heilman wrote: >> We learned a few things during the medical translation project which >> started back in 2011: >> >> 1) You must start with high quality content and thus all articles are >> extensively improved before being proposed for translation. >> >> 2) A lot of languages want "less" content than is present on EN WP. Thus we >> moved to just improving and suggesting for translation the leads of the >> English articles. >> >> 3) The "Content Translation" tool developed by the WMF made efforts more >> efficient than handing around word documents. Would love to see that tool >> improved further such as having it support specific lists of articles that >> are deemed ready for translation by certain groups. Would also love the >> tool to have tracking metrics for these types of projects. >> >> 4) We used volunteer translators mostly associated with our partner >> Translators Without Borders. One issue we found was that languages in which >> their are lots of translators such as French, Spanish, and Italian there is >> often already at least some content on many of the topics in question. The >> issue than becomes integration which needs an expert Wikipedia. And for >> languages in which we have little content there are often few avaliable >> volunteers. >> >> 5) With respect to "paying per word" the problem is this would require >> significant checks and balances to make sure people are taking the work >> seriously and not simple using Google translate for the 70 or so languages >> in which it claims to work. We often had translations undergo a second >> review and the volunteers at TWB have to pass certain tests to be accepted. >> >> 6) I hired a coordinator for the translation project for a couple of years. >> The translators at TWB did not want to become Wikipedians or learn how to >> use our systems. The coordinator created account like TransSW001 (one for >> each volunteer) and preloaded the article to be translated into Content >> Translation. They than gave the volunteer translator the user name and >> password to the account. >> >> 7) Were are we at now? There are currently just over 1,000 leads of >> articles that have been improved and are ready for translation. This >> includes articles on the 440 medications that are on the WHO Essential >> List. We have worked a bit in some 100 languages. The efforts have resulted >> in more than 5 million works translated and integrated into different >> Wikipedias. The coordinator has unfortunately moved on to his real job of >> teaching high school students. >> >> 8) The project continues but at a slower pace than before. The Wikipedian >> and retired orthopedic surgeon Subas Chandra Rout has basically single >> handedly translated nearly all 1,000 leads into Odia a language spoken by >> 40 million people in Eastern India. The amazing thing is that for many of >> these topics this is the first and only information online about it. Google >> translate does not even claim to work in this language. Our partnerships >> with WMTW and medical school in Taipai continue to translate into Chinese. >> There the students translate and than their translations are reviewed by >> their profs before being posted. They translate in groups using hackpad to >> make it more social. >> >> I am currently working to re invigorate the project :-) >> James >> >>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:51 AM, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> This discussion is going to be fun! =D >>> >>> A little more than seventy Wikipedia-projects has more than 65k articles, >>> the remaining two hundred or so are pretty small. >>> >>> What if a base set of articles were opened for paid translators? There are >>> several lists of such base sets. We have both the thousand articles from >>> "List of articles every Wikipedia should have"[1] and and the ten thousand >>> articles from the expanded list[2]. >>> >>> Lets say verified good translators was paid about $0.01 per word (about $1 >>> for a 1k-article) for translating one of those articles into another >>> language, with perhaps a higher pay for contributors in high-cost >>> countries. The pay would also have to be higher for languages that lacks >>> good translation tools. >>> >>> I believe this would be an _enabling_ activity for the communities, as >>> without a base set of articles it won't be possible to build a community at >>> all. By not paying for new articles, and only translating well-referenced >>> articles, some of the disputes in the communities could be avoided. Perhaps >>> we should also identify good source articles, that would be a help. >>> Translated articles should be above some minimum size, but they does not >>> have to be full translations of the source article. >>> >>> A real problem is that our existing lists of good articles other projects >>> should have is pretty much biased towards Western World, so they need a lot >>> of adjustments. Perhaps such a project would identify our inherit bias? >>> >>> [1] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_ >>> Wikipedia_should_have >>> [2] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_ >>> Wikipedia_should_have/Expanded >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ >>> wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > ------------------------------ > > End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 167, Issue 38 > ******************************************** _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
