Clean Sheet?

[Mikko Virkkilä]

Jonathon Blake wrote:

>Mikko wrote:
>
>  
>
>>a) While I recognize that a style guide is useful, I don't see why you seem to think a dictionary is evil
>>    
>>
>
>I'm not saying a dictionary is evil.  I'm saying it indicates that one
>is not fluent in both languages.
>
>  
>
I say bull. Even though your brain might work that way, other people's 
don't. My aunt was a professional translator and I have a friend that is 
studying to be one, both use dictionaries.

>>If you are trying to tell me that not remembering the translation of a word, means the person isn't fluent in one of the languages, 
>>    
>>
>
>I am.  That little datapoint means that they don't have a fluent
>vocabulary in both languages.
>  
>
And my response to that is that you are wrong.

>  
>
>>That sounds pretty harsh. 
>>    
>>
>
>Do you want an L10N Project to teach people both the language, and how
>to translate, or just how to translate?
>
>  
>
Come on! No one is talking about teaching someone an entire language.

>>Additionally, believe it or not but people are capable of learning
>>    
>>
>from their mistakes,
>
>I know people can learn from their mistakes.  
>
>The reason for eliminating 80% of the volunteers for translation, is
>because they have to learn both the language that they are
>translating, and how to translate.
>
>  
>
No. Teaching a few specific words, asking for improved rewrites, and 
instructing where to look for help/how a translation team functions 
doesn't equate to teaching the person a new language. Your claim that 
80% of the people writing translations don't even know the basics of the 
source or destination language is also something that I will not agree to.

>>More people working on translations means more translations. An improved review process mean more accurate translations. 
>>    
>>
>
>a)  Both of those can be used, without an L10N Team using a web based
>translation tool.
>  
>
Yes, but it has been found that web based translation tools lower the 
bar for entry -> more translations.

>b) An L10N Team can  integrate web based translation tools into the
>project home, if they think that that improves translation quality.
>
>  
>
Now while I think this is true, you'll find that places like sourceforge 
exist because people aren't interested in how to jump through a bunch of 
hoops to get the tool working, but in using the tool.

>>As I indicated in my previous reply, you are comparing apples to oranges. 
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>Wikipedia's articles are of remarkably good quality when 
>>    
>>
>
>a) I was using Wikipedia as a demonstration that more eyeballs does
>not mean less errors.
>
>  
>
And I explained why I disagreed, and why that example is irrelevant here.

>b) Wikipedia's lack of quality has been extensively documented.
>
>  
>
Again. Irrelevant.

>>you are comparing apples to oranges. 
>>    
>>
>
>The original assertion of this thread is that L10N projects should
>switch to Rosetta, and that software project teams should use Rosetta.
>
>I've been outlining why web based tools do not always make sense,
>pointing to other things, as a demonstration of why web based tools
>aren't always the best solution.
>
>  
>
Wikipedia has been a huge success in attracting people to work on it.
More translators mean more translations.
Wikipedia has its flaws, but there is no reason why those would apply 
here in the first place, and even then we could work the problems that 
do crop up.

>I haven't touched on specific licencing issues, yet.
>
>  
>
Good. Don't.

>>There is no reason why people should be able to freely modify reviewed strings. There is no reason why we shouldn't lock completed, reviewed translations
>>    
>>
>
>You already have that in non-web based translation tools.
>
>xan
>
>jonathon
>  
>
Yes, and no reason not using them in a web based tool.


I'm not one to argue on mailinglists. You are allowed your opinion and I 
feel I have stated mine. Feel free to respond to this if you like, but I 
have made my case and I will no longer continue to argue on this thread.