a.pirard.papou at gmail.com
Sat Jul 25 14:22:18 UTC 2015
My point was that, in this civilization, people are perfectly happy with
many bad links in Wikipedia or elsewhere.
(I, personally, would run a program to check them)
Now, if you want to digress...
On 2015-07-24 21:32, Ruben Maes wrote :
> Op vrijdag 24 juli 2015 heeft André Pirard <a.pirard.papou at gmail.com
> <mailto:a.pirard.papou at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
> > FYI, I once wrote an improvement to a Wikipedia page. A
> self-appointed vigilante came down on me and accused be of
> self-research (what I wrote was as verifiable as 1+2=3). I was
> requested to add a link to a page saying 1+2=3. I replied that what I
> said could be proved, and that, of the existing 3 links in the page, 3
> were incorrect.
> That's because Wikipedia does not aim to tell the truth, they want to
> summarize what can be found in other sources. That's why you have
> to add sources for everything except for the most trivially
> verifiable. Even if you know/think you're right. ;)
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TRUTH
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VER
I know that, but I find that those words of Wikipedia you summarize
nicely are complete nonsense in the case everyone would find unnecessary
or even stupid to write that source.
The points of my contribution were:
* That Google Translation is a two (at least) step process,
translating source to destination via en s -> en -> d.
No one would have written that except an Ukrainian explaining : s ->
en -> ru -> uk.
The vigilante's question was "how do you know"?
I finally imagined to provide as source the URL of a few
translation cases like this:
/le mot 'obvious' n'est pas français → "очевидными" слово не
/Not finding 'obvious' in the French dictionary when translating to
English, GT leaves it untranslated./
/Finding 'obvious' in the English dictionary when translating to
Russian, GT translates it.
Since my explanation, contributors seem to speak of that 2-step
process without citing a source and without any vigilante intervention.
* The Google Translation methodology ignores the grammar and fails
when the grammar, e.g. declensions, is necessary to understand the
phrase. Again, I provided the URL of a Russian to English
translation saying exactly the opposite of the original text because
GT was based on the order and not the declensions of the words.
In short, I find excellent to request providing sources but I find
stupid to, when there are no sources, forbid to say something true that
everyone will learn, understand and agree.
If we were allowed to say only what someone else already said, no one
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-be