Mailing List Archive

Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 4) Include a list of most needed articles for people to create, rather
> than random articles that will be of little use to local readers. Some
> articles, such as those on local topics, have the added benefit of
> encouraging more edits and community participation since they tend to
> generate more interest from speakers of a language in my experience.
>
>
This list will automatically come if Google engage the wiki community for
their project for a particular language. But for some wikipedias there is no
active wiki community. So how this issue can be solved?

Selection of the articles for translation is an important part for this
project. Definitely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles is
a good choice for this. Community might also be interested in some other
important articles (important with respect to the social/ cultural/geography
of the speakers of that language). So engaging local wiki community is most
important

~Shiju
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:42 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because such a statement is factually inaccurate - en:wp *did* use the
> 1911EB as starter material.

..and for [[Accius]], with 150 views per month, not even a single word
has been added after three years.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
I've noticed many of English Wikipedia articles cite only English
written articles even if the topics are of non-English world. And
normally, specially in the developing world, the most comprehend
sources are found in their own languages - how can those articles be
assured in NPOV when they ignore the majority of reliable sources?

Your logic looks simply failing to me.

And Google translation fails still now, even after it is "steadily" improved.

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:43 AM, stevertigo <stvrtg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I would like to add to this that I think the worst part of this idea
>> is the assumption that other languages should take articles from
>> en.wp.
>
> The idea is that most of en.wp's articles are well-enough written, and
> written in accord with NPOV to a sufficient degree to overcome any
> such criticism of 'imperial encyclopedism.'
>
> Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nobody's arguing here that language and culture have no relationship.
>> What I'm saying is that language does not equal culture. Many people
>> speak French who are not part of the culture of France, for example
>> the cities of Libreville and Abidjan in Africa.
>
> Africa is an unusual case given that it was so linguistically diverse
> to begin with, and that its even moreso in the post-colonial era, when
> Arabic, French, English, and Dutch remain prominent marks of
> imperialistic influence.
>
> Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
>> This is well suited for the dustbin of terrible ideas.  It ranks right
>> up there with the notion that the European colonization of Africa was
>> for the sole purpose of civilizing the savages.
>
> This is the 'encyclopedic imperialism' counterargument. I thought I'd
> throw it out there. As Bendt noted above, Google has already been
> working on it for two years and has had both success and failure. It
> bears mentioning that their tools have been improving quite steadily.
> A simple test such as /English -> Arabic -> English/ will show that.
>
> Note that colonialism isnt the issue. It still remains for example a
> high priority to teach English in Africa, for the simple reason that
> language is almost entirely a tool for communication, and English is
> quite good for that purpose.  Its notable that the smaller colonial
> powers such as the French were never going to be successful at
> linguistic imperialism in Africa, for the simple reason that French
> has not actually been the lingua franca for a long time now.
>
>> Key to the growth of Wikipedias in minority languages is respect for the
>> cultures that they encompass, not flooding them with the First-World
>> Point of View.  What might be a Neutral Point of View on the English
>> Wikipedia is limited by the contributions of English writers.  Those who
>> do not understand English may arrive at a different neutrality.  We have
>> not yet arrived at a Metapedia that would synthesize a single neutrality
>> from all projects.
>
> I strongly disagree. Neutral point of view has worked on en.wp because
> its a universalist concept. The cases where other language wikis
> reject English content appear to come due to POV, and thus a violation
> of NPOV, not because - as you seem to suggest - the POV in such
> countries must be considered "NPOV."
>
> Casey Brown <lists@caseybrown.org> wrote:
>> 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, about how language
>> influences culture (and, one would extrapolate, Wikipedia articles).
>
> I had just a few days ago read Boroditsky's piece in Edge, and it
> covers a lot of interesting little bits of evidence. As Mark was
> saying, linguistic relativity (or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) has been
> around for most of a century, and its wider conjectures were strongly
> contradicted by Chomsky et al. Yes there is compelling evidence that
> language does "channel" certain kinds of thought, but this should not
> be overstated. Like in other sciences, linguistics can sometimes make
> the mistake of making *qualitative judgments based on a field of
> *quantitative evidence.  This was essentially important back in the
> 40s and 50s when people were still putting down certain
> quasi-scientific conjectures from the late 1800s.
>
> Still there are cultures which claim their languages to be superior in
> certain ways simply because they are more sonorous or emotive, or
> otherwise expressive, and that's the essential paradigm that some
> linguists are working in.
>
> -SC
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
GT fails. At least for Japanese, it sucks. And that is why I don't
support it. GT may fit to SVO languages, but for SOV languages, it is
nothing but a crap.

Imagine to fix a 4000 words of documents whose all lines are sort of
"all your base is belong to us". It's not a simple thing as you
imagine - "spelling and punctuation". I admit it has been improved
(now Free Tibet from English to Japanese is "Furi Tibetto", not former
"muryo tibetto" (Tibet for gratis) in two years ago - but craps are
still craps and I don't want to spend my hours for the for-profit
giant.

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Shiju Alex <shijualexonline@gmail.com> wrote:
>>   1. Ban the project of Google as done by the Bengali wiki community (Bad
>>   solution, and I am personally against this solution)
>>   2. Ask Google to engage wiki community (As happened in the case of Tamil)
>>   to find out a working solution. But if there is no active wiki community
>>   what Google can do.  But does this mean that Google can continue with the
>>   project as they want? (Very difficult solution if there is no active wiki
>>   community)
>>   3. Find some other solution. For example, Is it possible to upload the
>>   translated articles in a separate name space, for example, Google: Let the
>>   community decides what needs to be taken to the main/article namespace.
>>   4. .........
>>
>> If some solution is not found soon, Google's effort is going to create
>> problem in many language wikipedias. The worst result of this effort would
>> be the rift between the wiki community and the Google translators (speakers
>> of the same language) :(
>>
>> Shiju
>
> Shiju,
>
> I think you have made some great suggestions here. I'd like to add a
> couple of my own:
>
> 1) Fix some of the formatting errors with GTTK. Would this really be
> so difficult? It seems to me that the breaking of links is a bug that
> needs fixing by Google.
> 2) Implement spelling and punctuation check automatically within GTTK
> before posting of the articles.
> 3) Have GTTK automatically remove broken templates and images, or
> require users to translate any templates before a page may be posted.
> 4) Include a list of most needed articles for people to create, rather
> than random articles that will be of little use to local readers. Some
> articles, such as those on local topics, have the added benefit of
> encouraging more edits and community participation since they tend to
> generate more interest from speakers of a language in my experience.
>
> 3 of these are things for Google to work on, one is something for us
> to work on. I think this is a potentially valuable resource, the
> problem is channeling the efforts and energies of these well-meaning
> people in the right direction so that local Wikipedias don't end up
> full of low-quality, unreadable articles with little hope for
> improvement. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
>
> -m.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Aphaia, Shiju Alex and I are referring to Google Translator Toolkit,
not Google Translate. If the person using the Toolkit uses it as it
was _meant_ to be used, the results should be as good as a human
translation because they've been reviewed and corrected by a human.

-m.


On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Aphaia <aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:
> GT fails. At least for Japanese, it sucks. And that is why I don't
> support it. GT may fit to SVO languages, but for SOV languages, it is
> nothing but a crap.
>
> Imagine to fix a 4000 words of documents whose all lines are sort of
> "all your base is belong to us". It's not a simple thing as you
> imagine - "spelling and punctuation". I admit it has been improved
> (now Free Tibet from English to Japanese is "Furi Tibetto", not former
> "muryo tibetto" (Tibet for gratis) in two years ago - but craps are
> still craps and I don't want to spend my hours for the for-profit
> giant.
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Shiju Alex <shijualexonline@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>   1. Ban the project of Google as done by the Bengali wiki community (Bad
>>>   solution, and I am personally against this solution)
>>>   2. Ask Google to engage wiki community (As happened in the case of Tamil)
>>>   to find out a working solution. But if there is no active wiki community
>>>   what Google can do.  But does this mean that Google can continue with the
>>>   project as they want? (Very difficult solution if there is no active wiki
>>>   community)
>>>   3. Find some other solution. For example, Is it possible to upload the
>>>   translated articles in a separate name space, for example, Google: Let the
>>>   community decides what needs to be taken to the main/article namespace.
>>>   4. .........
>>>
>>> If some solution is not found soon, Google's effort is going to create
>>> problem in many language wikipedias. The worst result of this effort would
>>> be the rift between the wiki community and the Google translators (speakers
>>> of the same language) :(
>>>
>>> Shiju
>>
>> Shiju,
>>
>> I think you have made some great suggestions here. I'd like to add a
>> couple of my own:
>>
>> 1) Fix some of the formatting errors with GTTK. Would this really be
>> so difficult? It seems to me that the breaking of links is a bug that
>> needs fixing by Google.
>> 2) Implement spelling and punctuation check automatically within GTTK
>> before posting of the articles.
>> 3) Have GTTK automatically remove broken templates and images, or
>> require users to translate any templates before a page may be posted.
>> 4) Include a list of most needed articles for people to create, rather
>> than random articles that will be of little use to local readers. Some
>> articles, such as those on local topics, have the added benefit of
>> encouraging more edits and community participation since they tend to
>> generate more interest from speakers of a language in my experience.
>>
>> 3 of these are things for Google to work on, one is something for us
>> to work on. I think this is a potentially valuable resource, the
>> problem is channeling the efforts and energies of these well-meaning
>> people in the right direction so that local Wikipedias don't end up
>> full of low-quality, unreadable articles with little hope for
>> improvement. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
>>
>> -m.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> KIZU Naoko
> http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
> Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Push translation [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aphaia, Shiju Alex and I are referring to Google Translator Toolkit,
> not Google Translate. If the person using the Toolkit uses it as it
> was _meant_ to be used, the results should be as good as a human
> translation because they've been reviewed and corrected by a human.

But if the program were being used by a human who speaks the language,
wouldn't it be *pull* translation and not *push* translation?

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Ah, I omitted T, and I meant Toolkit. A toolkit with garbage could be
called toolkit, but it doesn't change it is useless; it cannot deal
with syntax properly, i.e. conjugation etc. at this moment. Intended
to be "reviewed and corrected by a human" doesn't assure it was really
"reviewed and corrected by a human" to a sufficient extent. It could
be enough for your target language, but not for mine. Thanks.

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Casey Brown <lists@caseybrown.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Aphaia, Shiju Alex and I are referring to Google Translator Toolkit,
>> not Google Translate. If the person using the Toolkit uses it as it
>> was _meant_ to be used, the results should be as good as a human
>> translation because they've been reviewed and corrected by a human.
>
> But if the program were being used by a human who speaks the language,
> wouldn't it be *pull* translation and not *push* translation?
>
> --
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Aphaia wrote:
> Ah, I omitted T, and I meant Toolkit. A toolkit with garbage could be
> called toolkit, but it doesn't change it is useless; it cannot deal
> with syntax properly, i.e. conjugation etc. at this moment. Intended
> to be "reviewed and corrected by a human" doesn't assure it was really
> "reviewed and corrected by a human" to a sufficient extent. It could
> be enough for your target language, but not for mine. Thanks.
>
I think then it's not just about the capabilities of the tool or the
qualities of the language, but also the abilities of the human being who
is counted on to "intervene" in the translation. As with Wikipedia
editing generally, we don't really have a good mechanism to ensure that
a given individual has a particular skill level, we rely on their
mistakes being corrected by others. The only guarantee that the editor
of an article understands its subject matter (or even, in this case,
knows the language in which it is written) is for each of us to be aware
of our own limitations.

It's quite likely that for some languages, current translation tools are
not usable. It's possible that in some cases they never will be usable.
Speakers of a given language should evaluate and decide for themselves.
But it's certain that some people shouldn't be using these tools, if
they're not doing enough to clean up the machine translation word salad.
I know that I'd hesitate to use them in languages that I've studied but
am not particularly fluent in, like Spanish or Italian (not that those
Wikipedias need this kind of contribution from me anyway). If the tools
are being used indiscriminately, it might be best to persuade people
that they should work in areas they understand, not simply reject the
tool outright.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Mass machine translations ("pushing" them onto other projects that may or
may not want them) is a very bad idea.

Beginning in 2004-05, a non-native speaker on en.wp decided that he should
import slightly-cleaned babelfish translations of foreign language articles
that did not have articles on the English wikipedia. They were almost
uniformly horrid, and required many volunteer hours to clean up (I believe
some were simply deleted). The user had to be restrained from importing
additional articles in this manner.

I would not want to impose cleanup jobs upon users who did not volunteer for
them. In other words, I think the "pull" method of translation is not a
bug--it's a feature--it ensures that a competent native speaker is willing
and able to satisfactorily port an article to a different language.

That said, if someone wants to develop a tool to aid "pullers" by making a
first-pass translation of the wikitext of an article, I think that would be
an unambiguously good thing.

Frank
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> Suppose for a minute that your proposal were implemented, and all the
> machine translation problems were overcome. Would English NPOV be so
> good that community members in the target language would be incapable of
> making substantive improvements? And if they did make substantive
> change, how would you reconcile the divergence when both versions were
> subsequently edited?

Its a good question Ray. I'll avoid treating it as a technical one,
because there is no simple technical solution for it. Suffice it to
say that if another language has an article which en.wp lacks, then
there should be no problem with them "pushing" it to en.wp.

There are a couple implicit assumptions in your term "English NPOV:"
1) that English NPOV is some kind of acceptable POV localized to
English language contexts, or that 2) that there are qualitative
differences between NPOV vis-a-vis the language being used. It may be
interesting to see if we can do some testing for NPOV on those
languages which Google can translate. We could pick a field of
articles, read them over for completeness, etc. and grade them for
neutrality.

> I'm disinclined to accept your universalist conjecture.  It sounds too
> much like intelligent design for linguistics. When I visit the
> bookstores in another country I am struck by the difference in emphasis
> that they put on different topics.  This alone is bound to lead to
> different neutralities.

Careful with cultural relativity: There is a difference between
"emphasis" and "meaning." If you look over time at a single bookstore
in your own country, you will find emphasis rapidly changing based on
the local mood or interests. There's no way one can expect such things
as mood and interest to be correlated.

There are a couple implicit notions in this idea of a universal NPOV:
That people are in fact intelligent, and regardless of the language
system they use, they can design their articles according to NPOV. I
don't see what's controversial about that, or how different cultures
require "different neutralities."

-SC

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote:
> Aphaia wrote:
>> Ah, I omitted T, and I meant Toolkit. A toolkit with garbage could be
>> called toolkit, but it doesn't change it is useless; it cannot deal
>> with syntax properly, i.e. conjugation etc. at this moment.  Intended
>> to be "reviewed and corrected by a human" doesn't assure it was really
>> "reviewed and corrected by a human" to a sufficient extent. It could
>> be enough for your target language, but not for mine. Thanks.
>>
> I think then it's not just about the capabilities of the tool or the
> qualities of the language, but also the abilities of the human being who
> is counted on to "intervene" in the translation. As with Wikipedia
> editing generally, we don't really have a good mechanism to ensure that
> a given individual has a particular skill level, we rely on their
> mistakes being corrected by others. The only guarantee that the editor
> of an article understands its subject matter (or even, in this case,
> knows the language in which it is written) is for each of us to be aware
> of our own limitations.
>
> It's quite likely that for some languages, current translation tools are
> not usable. It's possible that in some cases they never will be usable.
> Speakers of a given language should evaluate and decide for themselves.
> But it's certain that some people shouldn't be using these tools, if
> they're not doing enough to clean up the machine translation word salad.
> I know that I'd hesitate to use them in languages that I've studied but
> am not particularly fluent in, like Spanish or Italian (not that those
> Wikipedias need this kind of contribution from me anyway). If the tools
> are being used indiscriminately, it might be best to persuade people
> that they should work in areas they understand, not simply reject the
> tool outright.

True, but this thread is concerning to "push" articles with machine
translation? And it implies to have others clean it up, not "work in
areas they understand" as you suggested, so I'd like to point out it
should never happen at least at this moment.

I don't oppose node_ue or others use those Google product just for
their use (it's upon them anyway), but if they recommend them (either
Google Translation Toolkit or Google Translation), I would like to
stress it's no snake oil for every language at this moment, and for
people like stevertigo, who think Google Translation is enough, it's
quite opposite of the truth. It may happen to work in some cases, but
generally cleaning up Google Translation results is nothing
recommendable for volunteers. Note that even Google themselves don't
use Google Translation for their Wikipedia translation project.

Cheers,

Cheers,

> --Michael Snow
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Hello all,

I am a heavy translator on WikiMedia projects. I would say more than 95%
of my contributions on content is translation. But I am against a blind
translation. For example mostly I would translate british or north
american related content from en-wp to zh-wp, and not from other
languages. I would translate german or general european related articles
mostly from de-wp to zh-wp. French related articles I try to translate
from fr-wp to zh-wp, mostly I would make a test beforehand that the
language in the article is enough comprehensible for me, since my French
is by far not on the lever of my German or English. But I would never
translate a Japanese related article because I don't think quite trust
what the German or other english speaking people write about Japan. I
never translate a China related article because I am very sure that at
some point they have a not correct context. Even if there is no article
in zh-wp about that particular entity I would rather wait a zh-wp user
who has more understanding to start an article on it. (Or, ocasionally I
would do research myself and start an article from scrap.)

Natural science related articles are sort of universal, although reading
through different languages you can also find here tremendous
differences between different language versions. I used to select the
(in my subjective opinion) more better version (before 2006 more en-wp,
in the last two three years de-wp or en-wp about half half), or I would
combine both versions.

Backward, I would only translate China related article from zh-wp into
de-wp, because I think the deficiency in de-wp in this area is the
biggest. And some zh-wp articles, especially the excellent aritcles, are
really very well written and researched and source. I don't see any
sense to translate a German related article from zh-wp to de-wp.

Translation should never be blind. For example en-wp articles about
american towns and cities could get very detailed, down to
neighbourhoods. I mostly omit too detailed parts one because I would
start to do original research beginning to invent Chinese transcriptions
for the names and second I think they are not really interesting for a
Chinese user. You can also find all kinds of failures in the original
article, if you are doing a blind translation, in the best case the
failures remain in the original article, in the worst case you propagate
those failures into language versions that maybe have no resource to
check those facts. For example in the article I am currently working on
[[:en:Mumbai culture]] there was the failure that the city has three
World Heritage (actually there are only two on its territory). Most
failures are wrong links because of articles got moved or disambigged
and the links didn't got corrected. For example in the article mentioned
above in the section Cinema Multiplex was linked to
[[:en:Multiplexing]], the correct link should be [[:en:Multiplex (movie
theater)]]. Such errors are quite common.

Doing more careful and considered translation can help both language
versions, more than simply doing a translation.

Greetings
Ting

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Yes, of course if it's not actually reviewed and corrected by a human
it's going to be bad. What I said was that if it's used "as it was
meant to be used", the results should be indistinguishable from a
normal human translation, regardless of the language involved because
all mistakes would be fixed by a person. People often neglect to do
that, but that doesn't make the tool inherently evil.

-m.

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Aphaia <aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, I omitted T, and I meant Toolkit. A toolkit with garbage could be
> called toolkit, but it doesn't change it is useless; it cannot deal
> with syntax properly, i.e. conjugation etc. at this moment.  Intended
> to be "reviewed and corrected by a human" doesn't assure it was really
> "reviewed and corrected by a human" to a sufficient extent. It could
> be enough for your target language, but not for mine. Thanks.
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Casey Brown <lists@caseybrown.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Aphaia, Shiju Alex and I are referring to Google Translator Toolkit,
>>> not Google Translate. If the person using the Toolkit uses it as it
>>> was _meant_ to be used, the results should be as good as a human
>>> translation because they've been reviewed and corrected by a human.
>>
>> But if the program were being used by a human who speaks the language,
>> wouldn't it be *pull* translation and not *push* translation?
>>
>> --
>> Casey Brown
>> Cbrown1023
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> KIZU Naoko
> http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
> Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Is anyone from Google reading this thread?

Because of this thread i tried to play with the Google Translator Toolkit a
little and found some technical problems. When i tried to send bug reports
about them through the "Contact us" form, i received after a few minutes a
"bounce" message from the translation-editor-support@google.com address.

I love reporting bugs, and developers are supposed to love reading them, but
it looks like i'm stuck here...

2010/7/27 Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>

> Aphaia, Shiju Alex and I are referring to Google Translator Toolkit,
> not Google Translate. If the person using the Toolkit uses it as it
> was _meant_ to be used, the results should be as good as a human
> translation because they've been reviewed and corrected by a human.
>
> --
אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
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: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Google is, in my experience, very difficult for "regular" people to
get in touch with. Sometimes, when a product is in beta, they give you
a way to contact them. They used to have an e-mail to contact them at
if you had information about bilingual corpora (I found one online
from the Nunavut parliament for English and Inuktitut, but now it
looks like they've removed the address) so they could use it to
improve Google Translate.

I think they intentionally have a relatively small support staff. I
read somewhere that that had turned out to be a huge problem for the
mobile phone they produced - people might not expect great support for
a huge website like Google, but when they buy electronics, they
certainly do expect to have someone they can call and talk to within
24 hours.

I don't think that's completely unwise, though. I'm sure they get tons
of crackpot e-mails all the time. I was reading an official blog about
Google Translate, and in the post about their Wikipedia contests,
someone wrote an angry comment that google "must hate Spain" because
the Spanish language wasn't mentioned in that particular post. Now
multiply that by millions, and that is part of the reason (or so I
imagine) that Google makes it difficult to contact them.

-m.

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
<amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> Is anyone from Google reading this thread?
>
> Because of this thread i tried to play with the Google Translator Toolkit a
> little and found some technical problems. When i tried to send bug reports
> about them through the "Contact us" form, i received after a few minutes a
> "bounce" message from the translation-editor-support@google.com address.
>
> I love reporting bugs, and developers are supposed to love reading them, but
> it looks like i'm stuck here...
>
> 2010/7/27 Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
>
>> Aphaia, Shiju Alex and I are referring to Google Translator Toolkit,
>> not Google Translate. If the person using the Toolkit uses it as it
>> was _meant_ to be used, the results should be as good as a human
>> translation because they've been reviewed and corrected by a human.
>>
>> --
> אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> 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
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
2010/7/29 Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>

> I don't think that's completely unwise, though. I'm sure they get tons
> of crackpot e-mails all the time. I was reading an official blog about
> Google Translate, and in the post about their Wikipedia contests,
> someone wrote an angry comment that google "must hate Spain" because
> the Spanish language wasn't mentioned in that particular post. Now
> multiply that by millions, and that is part of the reason (or so I
> imagine) that Google makes it difficult to contact them.
>
>
Bugzilla is difficult enough :)
The thing that i love the most in Free Software projects is that when you
report a bug, you know exactly where it went.

At OTRS a small bunch of volunteer Wikipedians deals quite successfully with
tons of pretty delusional email. Surely Google could at least give people an
email that doesn't bounce.

This problem may be one of the things that makes this translation project
misunderstood.
--
אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
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: Push translation [ In reply to ]
My 2c :


- I dont know where everyone came up with the notion that the tool
produces good results. Most of the articles on both Google's projects on the
Arabic wikipedia are barely intelligible, with broken sentences, weird
terminology and generally can be spotted right away (see my reply to the
other thread).
- Even if GTTK is improving, The idea of push contradicts with GTTK. Push
means that someone with no knowledge of Arabic will 'push' the en.wp (or any
other one) article to ar.wp. GTTK supposedly requires a translator that will
revise and rephrase what the machine translation couldn't do.
- NPOV falls victim to systemic bias, on en.wp or any other wiki. If not
in the representation of difference in opinion, but in the arrangement of
the article and the highlighting and order of different events. The wording
of paragraphs also usually gravitates towards western way of neutral
expression, which may be considered biased when read by someone where
English is not his first language.
- Let's suppose all the above didnt matter, and that GTTK works perfectly
fine, let's suppose this idea is taken to the extreme, it would be: take
largest x wikipedias, clone all articles to language x, wash, rinse, repeat.
Where is the community? where is the involvement and exchange of ideas and
continuous evolvement of articles? where's the wiki in wikipedia?
- I see it as POV to assume that wiki x has the 'perfect' article on a
certain subject such that everyone in the world needs to read that version
only.

--
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Muhammad Yahia <shipmaster@gmail.com> wrote:
>   Where is the community? where is the involvement and exchange of ideas and
>   continuous evolvement of articles? where's the wiki in wikipedia?
>   - I see it as POV to assume that wiki x has the 'perfect' article on a
>   certain subject such that everyone in the world needs to read that version  only.

You raise some important points. The understanding of
community-building is a key insight, and I think everyone here
appreciates it. I understand that it's not enough to just "push" an
article over to Swahili, for example, if 1) the translation is not
sufficiently understandable on its own, if 2) the receiving language
editors aren't practiced in how to handle such content, or if 3) the
sender doesn't leave a note in a "lingua franca" explaining what its
purpose is.

Note that the idea is not that only English language articles will
"push" over to other languages - the idea is that other languages may
have articles about topics which could be "pushed" over to English as
well.

There has been perhaps a natural sense that there is some kind of
encyclopedic imperialism inherent to the idea. There is also an
assumption among many here that language is always relativistic and of
cultural essence, or that English Wikipedia's 3.4 million articles are
just out of the scope of relevance to other languages. I'd like to
dispel those notions, but that would be out of scope for this
particular email.

-SC

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Having tried it tonight, I don't find the Google translator toolkit all that useful, at least not at this present level of development. To sum up:

First you read their translation.

Then you scratch your head: What the deuce is that supposed to mean ...?

Then you check the original language version.

Then you compare the two.

Then you start wondering: How did *this* turn into *that*?

Then you shake your head.

(Note: everything up to this point is unproductive time.)

Then you look at the original again and try to translate it.

As you do, you invariably end up leaving the Google shite where it is and writing your own text.

In the end, you delete the Google shite, and then, as you do so, you kick yourself because there were two words in there that you needn't have typed yourself.

Epic fail.

A.

--- On Wed, 28/7/10, Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wednesday, 28 July, 2010, 0:27
> Mass machine translations ("pushing"
> them onto other projects that may or
> may not want them) is a very bad idea.
>
> Beginning in 2004-05, a non-native speaker on en.wp decided
> that he should
> import slightly-cleaned babelfish translations of foreign
> language articles
> that did not have articles on the English wikipedia. 
> They were almost
> uniformly horrid, and required many volunteer hours to
> clean up (I believe
> some were simply deleted). The user had to be restrained
> from importing
> additional articles in this manner.
>
> I would not want to impose cleanup jobs upon users who did
> not volunteer for
> them.  In other words, I think the "pull" method of
> translation is not a
> bug--it's a feature--it ensures that a competent native
> speaker is willing
> and able to satisfactorily port an article to a different
> language.
>
> That said, if someone wants to develop a tool to aid
> "pullers" by making a
> first-pass translation of the wikitext of an article, I
> think that would be
> an unambiguously good thing.
>
> Frank
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Дана Friday 30 July 2010 02:31:44 Andreas Kolbe написа:
> Having tried it tonight, I don't find the Google translator toolkit all
> that useful, at least not at this present level of development. To sum up:
>
> First you read their translation.
>
> Then you scratch your head: What the deuce is that supposed to mean ...?
>
> Then you check the original language version.
>
> Then you compare the two.
>
> Then you start wondering: How did *this* turn into *that*?
>
> Then you shake your head.
>
> (Note: everything up to this point is unproductive time.)
>
> Then you look at the original again and try to translate it.
>
> As you do, you invariably end up leaving the Google shite where it is and
> writing your own text.
>
> In the end, you delete the Google shite, and then, as you do so, you kick
> yourself because there were two words in there that you needn't have typed
> yourself.

Interestingly, I have had a completely opposite experiences. When reading a
Google translation, it is easy for me to decipher what does it mean even if
it is not gramatically correct. When translating, I often hang on deciding
what sentence structure to use, or on remembering how a specific words
translates. GTT solves both problems. My estimate is that I retain half and
rewrite half of every sentence it produces.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.rs> wrote:

> Interestingly, I have had a completely opposite experiences. When reading a
> Google translation, it is easy for me to decipher what does it mean even if
> it is not gramatically correct. When translating, I often hang on deciding
> what sentence structure to use, or on remembering how a specific words
> translates. GTT solves both problems. My estimate is that I retain half and
> rewrite half of every sentence it produces.

Good points. The real purpose and functionality of GTT and MTT is not
just to base more formal translations on, but to give people a quick
look into what people in another language are saying. If people in
their own respective languages learn to be more formal and less
idiomatic in their writing, they can consider that at least the basic
gist of their writing can be suitably read by almost anyone.

-SC

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Aphaia, 27/07/2010 21:33:
> I've noticed many of English Wikipedia articles cite only English
> written articles even if the topics are of non-English world. And
> normally, specially in the developing world, the most comprehend
> sources are found in their own languages - how can those articles be
> assured in NPOV when they ignore the majority of reliable sources?

It's not only a matter of NPOV. There's even a policy for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources
Obviously you can expect other language version to want the same for
their language.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Push translation [ In reply to ]
Sorry for coming into this discussion a bit late. I'm one of the members of
Google's translation team, and I wanted to make myself available for
feedback/questions.

Quoting some suggestions from Mark earlier in the thread:

1) Fix some of the formatting errors with GTTK. Would this really be so
difficult? It seems to me that the breaking of links is a bug that needs
fixing by Google.

We're working on various formatting errors based on our conversations with
members of the Tamil and Telugu Wikipedia. We're hoping to push those out
soon (in the coming weeks).

2) Implement spelling and punctuation check automatically within GTTK before
posting of the articles.

There is spell check in Translator Toolkit, although it's not available for
all languages. We don't have any punctuation checks today and I doubt that
we can release this anytime soon. (If it's not available in Google Docs or
Gmail, then it's unlikely that we'll have it for Translator Toolkit, as
well, since we use the same infrastructure.)

What's the proposal, though - would you like for us to prevent publishing of
articles if they have too many spelling errors, or simply warn the user that
there are X spelling errors? Any input you can provide on preferred
behavior would be great.

3) Have GTTK automatically remove broken templates and images, or require
users to translate any templates before a page may be posted.

Templates are a bit tricky. Sometimes, a template in one Wikipedia does not
exist in another Wikipedia. Other times, a template in one langauge maps to
a template in another language but the parameters are different.

Removing broken templates automatically may not work because some templates
come between words. If we remove them, the sentences or paragraph may
become invalid. We've also considered creating a custom interface for
localizing templates, but this requires a lot of work.

In the interim, the approach we've taken is to have translators fix the
templates in Wikipedia when they post the article from Translator Toolkit.
When a user clicks on Share > Publish to source page in Translator Toolkit,
the Wikipedia article is in preview mode --- it's not live. The idea is
that if there are any errors, the translator can fix them before saving the
article.

4) Include a list of most needed articles for people to create, rather than
random articles that will be of little use to local readers. Some articles,
such as those on local topics, have the added benefit of encouraging more
edits and community participation since they tend to generate more interest
from speakers of a language in my experience.

The articles we selected actually weren't really random. Here's how we
selected them:

1. we looked at the top Google searches in the region (e.g., for Tamil, we
looked at searches in India and I believe Sri Lanka, as well)
2. from the top Google searches in the region, we looked at the top, clicked
Wikipedia articles --- regardless of the language (so we wound up with
Wikipedia source articles in English, Hindi, and other languages)
3. from the top, clicked Wikipedia articles, we looked for articles that
were either stubs or unavailable in the local language - these are the
articles that we sent for translation

This selection isn't perfect. For example, it assumes that the top, clicked
Wikipedia articles by all users in India/Sri Lanka --- who may be searching
in English, Hindi, Tamil, or some other language --- are relevant to the
Tamil community. To improve this, last month, we met with members of the
Tamil and Telugu Wikipedias to improve this article selection. The main
changes that we agreed on were:

1. the local Wikipedia community should give Google final OK on what
articles should or should not be translated
2. the local Wikipedia community add articles to Google's list
3. the local Wikipedia community can suggest titles for the articles
4. Google's translators will post the articles with their user names, and
they will monitor community feedback on their user pages until the
translation meets the community's standards

We're just getting started on this new process, and we'll keep refining this
with the Tamil and Telugu communities as we move forward. If it's
successful, we'll use it as our template for other projects.

As always, any feedback or suggestions are welcome. Also, while I plan to
look at this foundation lists periodically, if you have bugs, you can also
file them to our bug queue: translator-toolkit-support at google.com. While
the eng team may not monitor this list, they do look at the support queue.

Regards,

Mike

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com>wrote:

> Aphaia, 27/07/2010 21:33:
> > I've noticed many of English Wikipedia articles cite only English
> > written articles even if the topics are of non-English world. And
> > normally, specially in the developing world, the most comprehend
> > sources are found in their own languages - how can those articles be
> > assured in NPOV when they ignore the majority of reliable sources?
>
> It's not only a matter of NPOV. There's even a policy for this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources
> Obviously you can expect other language version to want the same for
> their language.
>
> Nemo
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Push translation [ In reply to ]
On 08/05/2010 03:12 PM, Michael Galvez wrote:
> Sorry for coming into this discussion a bit late. I'm one of the members of
> Google's translation team, and I wanted to make myself available for
> feedback/questions.

This is an unusual and most welcome step for Google. When I first
learned about GTTK in June 2009, I used it to translate a handful of
articles from English to Swedish. I'm glad that it's now also possible
to translate into English, but some of the errors are still there.

It's a great tool, and should be used more. We have a common
interest in improving it. But for this, wikipedians need feedback.
Which language pairs are most active? What words or phrases
does GTTK find problematic, and can we somehow improve that?
Google could benefit so much from collaborating with wikipedians.
Ultimately, Google could share some translation dictionaries, so
we could include them in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Users of Gmail or Google Apps want their privacy, but users who
translate Wikipedia articles are already sharing their results, so
Google could help us to find each other and make us collaborate.
Translations that start from a Wikipedia article could by default
be put in a shared pool where other wikipedians can find them.

To some details:

I need a way to mark in the original text that a phrase is a quote,
book title or noun proper that shouldn't be translated, but copied
literally. And in the statistics, those words should not be counted
as untranslated and block me from publishing the result. Optimally,
GTTK would learn over time where such literal phrases occur, e.g.
text in italics under the ==Bibliography== section.

English ==References== corresponds to Swedish ==Källor==,
even though the two words are not direct translations. GTTK was
pretty quick to pick this up. However, the different styles we use
for the opening paragraph of biographic articles, using parenthesis
around the birth and death dates in the English Wikipedia, but not
in some other languages, is something GTTK has not yet learned.

Categories should not be translated, but GTTK should follow the
interwiki links for categories. If none exist, perhaps suggest a
parent category.

Even for articles that already exist in the target language, we often
need to translate another section. For example, the Swedish Wikipedia
might have an article about Afghanistan with a good section about its
geography, but the history section needs improvement, and could
be translated from another language. The work-around is to begin
a translation of the whole article, but only translate the relevant
part and then cut-and-paste into the target without submitting
through GTTK. Perhaps GTTK could bring up both articles side by
side and suggest which sections are in most dire need of improvement?


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@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: Push translation [ In reply to ]
> 2) Implement spelling and punctuation check automatically within GTTK before
> posting of the articles.
>
> There is spell check in Translator Toolkit, although it's not available for
> all languages.  We don't have any punctuation checks today and I doubt that
> we can release this anytime soon.  (If it's not available in Google Docs or
> Gmail, then it's unlikely that we'll have it for Translator Toolkit, as
> well, since we use the same infrastructure.)
>
> What's the proposal, though - would you like for us to prevent publishing of
> articles if they have too many spelling errors, or simply warn the user that
> there are X spelling errors?  Any input you can provide on preferred
> behavior would be great.

I would say to force spellcheck before publication, which does not
seem to be the case currently. I think this would be enough - perhaps
a warning as well. I don't know about preventing publication, although
that might work too.

> 3) Have GTTK automatically remove broken templates and images, or require
> users to translate any templates before a page may be posted.
>
> Templates are a bit tricky.  Sometimes, a template in one Wikipedia does not
> exist in another Wikipedia.  Other times, a template in one langauge maps to
> a template in another language but the parameters are different.
>
> Removing broken templates automatically may not work because some templates
> come between words.  If we remove them, the sentences or paragraph may
> become invalid.  We've also considered creating a custom interface for
> localizing templates, but this requires a lot of work.
>
> In the interim, the approach we've taken is to have translators fix the
> templates in Wikipedia when they post the article from Translator Toolkit.
>  When a user clicks on Share > Publish to source page in Translator Toolkit,
> the Wikipedia article is in preview mode --- it's not live.  The idea is
> that if there are any errors, the translator can fix them before saving the
> article.

Well, many translators do fix such problems, but I was just thinking
of some of the problems that I've heard so far with people who do
"drive-by" translations, dropping it on a project and then
disappearing. If translators are careful and do all the work
themselves, templates are an annoyance rather than a real problem.

> 4) Include a list of most needed articles for people to create, rather than
> random articles that will be of little use to local readers. Some articles,
> such as those on local topics, have the added benefit of encouraging more
> edits and community participation since they tend to generate more interest
> from speakers of a language in my experience.
>
> The articles we selected actually weren't really random.  Here's how we
> selected them:
>
> 1. we looked at the top Google searches in the region (e.g., for Tamil, we
> looked at searches in India and I believe Sri Lanka, as well)
> 2. from the top Google searches in the region, we looked at the top, clicked
> Wikipedia articles --- regardless of the language (so we wound up with
> Wikipedia source articles in English, Hindi, and other languages)
> 3. from the top, clicked Wikipedia articles, we looked for articles that
> were either stubs or unavailable in the local language - these are the
> articles that we sent for translation
>
> This selection isn't perfect.  For example, it assumes that the top, clicked
> Wikipedia articles by all users in India/Sri Lanka --- who may be searching
> in English, Hindi, Tamil, or some other language --- are relevant to the
> Tamil community.  To improve this, last month, we met with members of the
> Tamil and Telugu Wikipedias to improve this article selection.  The main
> changes that we agreed on were:

I'm not sure if this project was separate from the Swahili Wikipedia
Challenge, but I'm assuming it was after seeing articles such as
http://sw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maduka_ya_United_Cigar_Stores (about a
defunct chain of cigar stores in the US) which I doubt were popular
searches in East Africa.

One more idea: Automatically add existing Interwikis links to the new article.

Also, as far as Indic languages go, I would ask if there's any chance
you have any Oriya speakers - with 637 articles, the Oriya Wikipedia
is by far the most anemic of Indic-language Wikipedias, in spite of a
speaker population of 31 million.

-m.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2 3 4  View All