Push translation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
79 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Push translation

stevertigo-2
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 translated article, and we can consider how
we make use of them in an active way. What is largely a "pull"
paradigm can also be a "push" paradigm - we can use translation tools
to "push" articles to other wikis.

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.

-SC

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

Pavlo Shevelo
> 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, stevertigo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 translated article, and we can consider how
> we make use of them in an active way. What is largely a "pull"
> paradigm can also be a "push" paradigm - we can use translation tools
> to "push" articles to other wikis.
>
> 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.
>
> -SC
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

Bence Damokos
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
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

Oliver Keyes-3
"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
indicative of a small userbase - a small userbase then having to cope with
copyediting hundreds or thousands of new articles all referenced in a
foreign language. In addition, wikis with vast gaps and small numbers of
users are likely to be those in "small" languages; an effective Chuvash
translation tool, say, is hardly a massive priority for most online
translators.

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Bence Damokos <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

Casey Brown-5
In reply to this post by Pavlo Shevelo
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Pavlo Shevelo <[hidden email]> 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 will be almost the disaster...
>

...and we need to remember that most articles are *not* translations
of the English article, but are home-grown on the wiki and use their
own sources in their own language.

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

Cristian Consonni
2010/7/24 Casey Brown <[hidden email]>:

> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Pavlo Shevelo <[hidden email]> 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 will be almost the disaster...
>>
>
> ...and we need to remember that most articles are *not* translations
> of the English article, but are home-grown on the wiki and use their
> own sources in their own language.

Also don't forget that the same subject can be treated very
differently among different cultures (even if they are not distant,
think to French and English).

An article in the English Wikipedia can be a very good basis to start
a new article, but I don't think that an automated "flooding" of the
other Wikipedias is a good thing in *any* way.

Cristian

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

Oliver Keyes-3
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 common
things, the ways in which people can contribute have been reduced - they
can't write an article on africa, say. As such, the community growth is
slowing (one theory, not one I subscribe to). If you want to grow an active
userbase, which is the only way for sustained and non-artificial growth that
can respond to the concerns of its readers, you need an active userbase. And
for that, there has to be something they can write; there has to be a
redlink for Africa, or physics, or Britain. There has to be something where
the reader goes "I could fix that" and becomes an editor.

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Cristian Consonni <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> 2010/7/24 Casey Brown <[hidden email]>:
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Pavlo Shevelo <[hidden email]>
> 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 will be almost the disaster...
> >>
> >
> > ...and we need to remember that most articles are *not* translations
> > of the English article, but are home-grown on the wiki and use their
> > own sources in their own language.
>
> Also don't forget that the same subject can be treated very
> differently among different cultures (even if they are not distant,
> think to French and English).
>
> An article in the English Wikipedia can be a very good basis to start
> a new article, but I don't think that an automated "flooding" of the
> other Wikipedias is a good thing in *any* way.
>
> Cristian
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Cristian Consonni
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 about the Acehnese Wikipedia. Some
people said that all Acehnese were Muslim (not true - there is a small
community of Acehnese Christians). They said that if anyone is
Christian, they'd be ejected from Acehnese society and therefore no
longer Acehnese. However, they'd not stop speaking the Acehnese
language.

Nobody claims the English WP is for US/Commonwealth cultures only...
this is reasonable when a Wiki is tiny, but as it grows large it's
important that NPOV mean "neutral point of view for EVERYBODY", not
just "a point of view that everybody in OUR country can agree upon",
etc.

-m.

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Cristian Consonni
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2010/7/24 Casey Brown <[hidden email]>:
>> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Pavlo Shevelo <[hidden email]> 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 will be almost the disaster...
>>>
>>
>> ...and we need to remember that most articles are *not* translations
>> of the English article, but are home-grown on the wiki and use their
>> own sources in their own language.
>
> Also don't forget that the same subject can be treated very
> differently among different cultures (even if they are not distant,
> think to French and English).
>
> An article in the English Wikipedia can be a very good basis to start
> a new article, but I don't think that an automated "flooding" of the
> other Wikipedias is a good thing in *any* way.
>
> Cristian
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Bence Damokos
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 into Wikipedia articles (that would be
a disaster), to people suggesting (begging?) Google allow the user
community to localize their UI (they already do - Facebook took the
idea from Google!). Oh, also, somebody protesting the fact that the
Spanish language was not mentioned in the post and suggesting that
such an omission must mean Google hates Spain. I only saw one comment
on that page that didn't make me want to bang my head on the keyboard
(but such is the Internet, right?)

-m.


On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Bence Damokos <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

Casey Brown-5
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> 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, about how language
influences culture (and, one would extrapolate, Wikipedia articles).
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383131592767868.html>

> 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 about the Acehnese Wikipedia. Some
> people said that all Acehnese were Muslim (not true - there is a small
> community of Acehnese Christians). They said that if anyone is
> Christian, they'd be ejected from Acehnese society and therefore no
> longer Acehnese. However, they'd not stop speaking the Acehnese
> language.
>
> Nobody claims the English WP is for US/Commonwealth cultures only...
> this is reasonable when a Wiki is tiny, but as it grows large it's
> important that NPOV mean "neutral point of view for EVERYBODY", not
> just "a point of view that everybody in OUR country can agree upon",
> etc.
>

No one suggested that it was about "a point of view that everyone in OUR
country can agree upon".  No one's suggesting that anyone "owns" a
wiki or that you're not welcome to contribute.  It's just that
different wikis/languages are different and have different articles.
Some focus on different topics based on what they usually do, some try
to tackle the subject scholarly, some probably don't focus on blame
(see the article's commentary on Japanese/Spanish views of accidental
events), etc.

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by stevertigo-2
stevertigo wrote:

> 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 translated article, and we can consider how
> we make use of them in an active way. What is largely a "pull"
> paradigm can also be a "push" paradigm - we can use translation tools
> to "push" articles to other wikis.
>
> 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.
>  
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.

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.

In addition to bludgeoning these cultures with an imposed neutrality,
there is also the risk of overwhelming them with sheer volume.  I
remember only too well the uproar when the large quantity of articles on
every small community in the United States were botted into en-wp.  
Neutrality was not an issue in that case, but the quantity of unchecked
material was even if it came from a reliable source.

It's important for the minority language projects to choose what is
important to them, and what is relevant to their culture.  As useful and
uncontroversial as many English articles may be in our eyes they may
still not yet be notable for minority languages.

Ray

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Casey Brown-5
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Casey Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> 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, about how language
> influences culture (and, one would extrapolate, Wikipedia articles).
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383131592767868.html>

Casey, that's nothing new, nor is it anything I was unaware of. The
debate about whether language influences thought (or vice versa) has
long been a debate within the scholarly community. Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity for a more detailed
treatment of the subject - there's still no consensus.

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. Many (many!) people
who speak English are not part of the culture of England (or even the
rest of the UK, the United States, Canada, Australia or New Zealand),
including hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of native speakers.

Languages are certainly cultural artifacts, but that does not mean
that they are equivalent. Imagine tomorrow morning everybody in Japan
spoke French and only French and that all Japanese literature and text
suddenly was printed only in French. Would Japanese culture cease to
exist? Not at all. The customs, attitudes, rituals, beliefs and even
the food would not be changed (attitudes is debatable perhaps, but I'm
not a believer of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). Yes, something great
would be lost, an irreplaceable _part_ of the Japanese culture, but
cultures have sometimes persisted in spite language death. Ritual
prayers are sometimes translated to the new language, other times
fossilized in a language now rendered incomprehensible by time, same
goes for geographic and personal names...

I think it's pretty clear at this point that, for example, all 4 of
the regular users of ace.wp are offended by certain images on en.wp. I
don't think it would be a stretch to say that many - probably the vast
majority - of Acehnese speakers would find those images similarly
offensive. Now let's say I've got a toddler and he has an Acehnese
caretaker. This caretaker is monolingual in Acehnese, but they've been
expressly forbidden from mentioning religion.

When this toddler grows up, he'll probably be good enough at Acehnese
and have spoken it early enough in life to be considered a native
speaker... but will he automatically have any inclinations one way or
another about the pictures? Of course not. So, just because the vast
majority of speakers of a language share a cultural background does
NOT mean that the language could only ever be spoken by people who
belong to that culture. Wikipedia versions are very clearly for
languages. the Estonian Wikipedia is the Wikipedia in the Estonian
language, not the Wikipedia for Estonian Culture.

As an example of this, I have a good friend who grew up speaking Akan,
having had a nanny from West Africa. Is my friend a member of the Akan
culture? Not really... does that mean she couldn't be a productive
member of the Akan Wikipedia (if she wanted to be :-( )? No.

If Wikipedias were for cultures, the edits of Macedonians, Chinese,
Italians or Congolese people to en.wp would be somehow less valid that
those of native speakers of English in predominantly Anglophone
societies. Of course, this is not the case.

That's one of the things I like about en.wp - the fact that people who
do not speak English as their primary language form a large portion of
our editors means that things are likely to come out a bit more
balanced. Argentine editors can edit [[Falkland Islands]], for
example. In my humble opinion, this is the way it should be. Language
is a troublesome barrier. Who is to ensure that Turkish or Greek
articles about Cyprus are neutral? I'm not an advocate of a one-world
language, but if we had perfect MT tech, I would be in favor of
everybody collaborating on one massive international WP.

>> 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 about the Acehnese Wikipedia. Some
>> people said that all Acehnese were Muslim (not true - there is a small
>> community of Acehnese Christians). They said that if anyone is
>> Christian, they'd be ejected from Acehnese society and therefore no
>> longer Acehnese. However, they'd not stop speaking the Acehnese
>> language.
>>
>> Nobody claims the English WP is for US/Commonwealth cultures only...
>> this is reasonable when a Wiki is tiny, but as it grows large it's
>> important that NPOV mean "neutral point of view for EVERYBODY", not
>> just "a point of view that everybody in OUR country can agree upon",
>> etc.
>>
>
> No one suggested that it was about "a point of view that everyone in OUR
> country can agree upon".  No one's suggesting that anyone "owns" a
> wiki or that you're not welcome to contribute.  It's just that
> different wikis/languages are different and have different articles.
> Some focus on different topics based on what they usually do, some try
> to tackle the subject scholarly, some probably don't focus on blame
> (see the article's commentary on Japanese/Spanish views of accidental
> events), etc.

I'll ignore your "probably" here for the time being. However, I don't
see any good reason that different Wikis need to have different
contents. Different communities have agreed on different policies,
articles are allowed on en.wp that would be speedily deleted on de.wp,
but these policies are not necessarily based on some intrinsic aspect
of the language, but rather the opinions of the people who make up
that particular community. Please, please, please note that I am not
saying everybody should follow the same policy, I'm just saying that
policy differences or differences in article content are not a result
of some sort of intrinsic property of the language in which they are
written. A _good_ translation of any _good_ article from any language
into any other language should be perfectly acceptable, with
allowances for local policy differences (which again are set by the
Wiki community, NOT by every single speaker of that language).

-m.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
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.

I would be in favor of an international, language-free Wikipedia
if/when perfect (or 99.99% accurate) MT software exists, but that is
not currently the case. My point here is that rather than forcing
English articles on other languages, everybody everywhere speaking any
language should be able to modify the same article and view it in
their native language.

-m.

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:59 AM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> stevertigo wrote:
>> 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 translated article, and we can consider how
>> we make use of them in an active way. What is largely a "pull"
>> paradigm can also be a "push" paradigm - we can use translation tools
>> to "push" articles to other wikis.
>>
>> 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.
>>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> In addition to bludgeoning these cultures with an imposed neutrality,
> there is also the risk of overwhelming them with sheer volume.  I
> remember only too well the uproar when the large quantity of articles on
> every small community in the United States were botted into en-wp.
> Neutrality was not an issue in that case, but the quantity of unchecked
> material was even if it came from a reliable source.
>
> It's important for the minority language projects to choose what is
> important to them, and what is relevant to their culture.  As useful and
> uncontroversial as many English articles may be in our eyes they may
> still not yet be notable for minority languages.
>
> Ray
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

stevertigo-2
Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

Marco Chiesa
In reply to this post by stevertigo-2
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:57 AM, stevertigo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 translated article, and we can consider how
> we make use of them in an active way. What is largely a "pull"
> paradigm can also be a "push" paradigm - we can use translation tools
> to "push" articles to other wikis.

I don't know whether other wikipedias have similar policies, but on
the Italian Wikipedia an article which is just a machine translation
can be speedy deleted according to our policies. The reason is that
machine translations are not good enough and the autotranslated text
is too difficult to read, at least for Italian. It is true that as
Italian is not as used as a foreign language as others, native
speakers are not used to people writing in bad Italian (Bad English is
far more common) so it is natural to set a higher threshold. I agree
that machine translations are a good starting point, but that means
that someone who knows the target language (it doesn't matter whether
as native or not) must fix the translation correcting for the typical
machine mistakes (such as translating person names, etc.)
>
> 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.
>

I see a big risk that this may be perceived as cultural colonialism,
but that's something that already happens (some parts of the world
write more on Wikipedia than others). But somehow pushing from the
small wikis to the big ones is one of the best ways to get local
topics globally known.

Cruccone

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

Pavlo Shevelo
> I don't know whether other wikipedias have similar policies, but on
> the Italian Wikipedia an article which is just a machine translation
> can be speedy deleted according to our policies. The reason is that
> machine translations are not good enough and the autotranslated text
> is too difficult to read, at least for Italian. It is true that as
> Italian is not as used as a foreign language as others, native
> speakers are not used to people writing in bad Italian (Bad English is
> far more common) so it is natural to set a higher threshold.

Same in Ukrainian Wikipedia

>  I agree
> that machine translations are a good starting point,

For time being machine translations are good only as aid to
comprehend/grasp articles, pointed by interwiki.


On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Marco Chiesa <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:57 AM, stevertigo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 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 translated article, and we can consider how
>> we make use of them in an active way. What is largely a "pull"
>> paradigm can also be a "push" paradigm - we can use translation tools
>> to "push" articles to other wikis.
>
> I don't know whether other wikipedias have similar policies, but on
> the Italian Wikipedia an article which is just a machine translation
> can be speedy deleted according to our policies. The reason is that
> machine translations are not good enough and the autotranslated text
> is too difficult to read, at least for Italian. It is true that as
> Italian is not as used as a foreign language as others, native
> speakers are not used to people writing in bad Italian (Bad English is
> far more common) so it is natural to set a higher threshold. I agree
> that machine translations are a good starting point, but that means
> that someone who knows the target language (it doesn't matter whether
> as native or not) must fix the translation correcting for the typical
> machine mistakes (such as translating person names, etc.)
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I see a big risk that this may be perceived as cultural colonialism,
> but that's something that already happens (some parts of the world
> write more on Wikipedia than others). But somehow pushing from the
> small wikis to the big ones is one of the best ways to get local
> topics globally known.
>
> Cruccone
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

Oliver Keyes-3
In reply to this post by stevertigo-2
"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.' - really? It's a) not
particularly well-written, mostly and b) referenced overwhelmingly to
English-language sources, most of which are, you guessed it.. Western in
nature.

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 3:43 AM, stevertigo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

Shiju Alex
>
> really? It's a) not
> particularly well-written, mostly and b) referenced overwhelmingly to
>
>> English-language sources, most of which are, you guessed it.. Western in
>>
> nature.
>

Very much true. Now English Wikipedians want some one to translate and use
the exact copy of en:wp in all other language wikipedias. And they have the
support of Google for that.






On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]>wrote:

> "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.' - really? It's a) not
> particularly well-written, mostly and b) referenced overwhelmingly to
> English-language sources, most of which are, you guessed it.. Western in
> nature.
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 3:43 AM, stevertigo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

M. Williamson
Shiju Alex,

Stevertigo is just one en.wikipedian.

As far as using exact copies goes, I don't know about the policy at
your home wiki, but in many Wikipedias this sort of back-and-forth
translation and trading and sharing of articles has been going on
since day one, not just with English but with other languages as well.
If I see a good article on any Wikipedia in a language I understand
that is lacking in another, I'll happily translate it. I have never
seen this cause problems provided I use proper spelling and grammar
and do not use templates or images that leave red links.

I started out at en.wp in 2001, so I don't think it's unreasonable to
call myself an English Wikipedian (although I'd prefer to think of
myself as an international Wikipedian, with lots of edits at wikis
such as Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, Navajo, Haitian and Moldovan). I am
not at all in favor of pushing any sort of articles on anybody, if a
community discusses and reaches consensus to disallow translations
(even ones made by humans, including professionals), that is
absolutely their right, although I don't think it's wise to disallow
people from using material from other Wikipedias.

Google Translator Toolkit is particularly problematic because it
messes up the existing article formatting (one example, it messes up
internal links by putting punctuation marks before double brackets
when they should be after) and it includes incompatible formatting
such as redlinked templates. It also doesn't help that many editors
don't stick around to fix their articles afterwards.

-m.

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Shiju Alex <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>
>> really? It's a) not
>> particularly well-written, mostly and b) referenced overwhelmingly to
>>
>>> English-language sources, most of which are, you guessed it.. Western in
>>>
>> nature.
>>
>
> Very much true. Now English Wikipedians want some one to translate and use
> the exact copy of en:wp in all other language wikipedias. And they have the
> support of Google for that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> "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.' - really? It's a) not
>> particularly well-written, mostly and b) referenced overwhelmingly to
>> English-language sources, most of which are, you guessed it.. Western in
>> nature.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 3:43 AM, stevertigo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Push translation

Ray Saintonge
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Google Translator Toolkit is particularly problematic because it
> messes up the existing article formatting (one example, it messes up
> internal links by putting punctuation marks before double brackets
> when they should be after) and it includes incompatible formatting
> such as redlinked templates. It also doesn't help that many editors
> don't stick around to fix their articles afterwards.
>  

The key word is "Toolkit". The formatting anomalies, like the strange
errors in OCR, should be expected by those using machine translations.  
I have no objection to "pull" translations; these suggest that someone
*in the target project* considered the topic worth including at the
current stage of the project. Speedy deleting these articles when they
first appear would be too hasty.  The fixup within a reasonable time
after the machine translation is added is an important part of the
contribution.

Ray

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1234