Mailing List Archive

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 23:42, Brian<Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu> wrote:
> Google has built in support for using its machine translation technology to
> help bootstrap human translations of Wikipedia articles.
>
> http://translate.google.com/toolkit/docupload
>
> The benefit to Google is clear - they need sentence-aligned text in multiple
> languages in order to bootstrap their automated system.
>
> This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help
> people, etc... I'm sure this is now the most efficient way to produce high
> quality translations of Wikipedia articles en masse.
>
> We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA
> licensed.

Machine translation in its current status is so useless for anything
beyond ordering Opera Garnier tickets, that the copyright status of
its output is not quite relevant and i don't expect this to change in
the next fifty years.

--
אמיר אלישע אהרוני

heb: http://haharoni.wordpress.com | eng: http://aharoni.wordpress.com
cat: http://aprenent.wordpress.com | rus: http://amire80.livejournal.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

On what basis do you make this extremely negative assessment?

Readability is the the same thing as ability to read.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 23:42, Brian<Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu> wrote:
> > Google has built in support for using its machine translation technology
> to
> > help bootstrap human translations of Wikipedia articles.
> >
> > http://translate.google.com/toolkit/docupload
> >
> > The benefit to Google is clear - they need sentence-aligned text in
> multiple
> > languages in order to bootstrap their automated system.
> >
> > This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help
> > people, etc... I'm sure this is now the most efficient way to produce
> high
> > quality translations of Wikipedia articles en masse.
> >
> > We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA
> > licensed.
>
> Machine translation in its current status is so useless for anything
> beyond ordering Opera Garnier tickets, that the copyright status of
> its output is not quite relevant and i don't expect this to change in
> the next fifty years.
>
> --
> אמיר אלישע אהרוני
>
> heb: http://haharoni.wordpress.com | eng: http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> cat: http://aprenent.wordpress.com | rus: http://amire80.livejournal.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

Honestly, I should have learned by now to ignore comments like this. Google
is the leading world expert on machine translation and they think it's a
good idea. I understand why they think it's a good idea, you don't. You're
shooting straight from the gut.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 23:42, Brian<Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu> wrote:
> > Google has built in support for using its machine translation technology
> to
> > help bootstrap human translations of Wikipedia articles.
> >
> > http://translate.google.com/toolkit/docupload
> >
> > The benefit to Google is clear - they need sentence-aligned text in
> multiple
> > languages in order to bootstrap their automated system.
> >
> > This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help
> > people, etc... I'm sure this is now the most efficient way to produce
> high
> > quality translations of Wikipedia articles en masse.
> >
> > We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA
> > licensed.
>
> Machine translation in its current status is so useless for anything
> beyond ordering Opera Garnier tickets, that the copyright status of
> its output is not quite relevant and i don't expect this to change in
> the next fifty years.
>
> --
> אמיר אלישע אהרוני
>
> heb: http://haharoni.wordpress.com | eng: http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> cat: http://aprenent.wordpress.com | rus: http://amire80.livejournal.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

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Brian<Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu> wrote:
> Honestly, I should have learned by now to ignore comments like this. Google
> is the leading world expert on machine translation and they think it's a
> good idea. I understand why they think it's a good idea, you don't. You're
> shooting straight from the gut.
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 23:42, Brian<Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu> wrote:
>> > Google has built in support for using its machine translation technology
>> to
>> > help bootstrap human translations of Wikipedia articles.
>> >
>> > http://translate.google.com/toolkit/docupload
>> >
>> > The benefit to Google is clear - they need sentence-aligned text in
>> multiple
>> > languages in order to bootstrap their automated system.
>> >
>> > This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help
>> > people, etc... I'm sure this is now the most efficient way to produce
>> high
>> > quality translations of Wikipedia articles en masse.
>> >
>> > We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA
>> > licensed.
>>
>> Machine translation in its current status is so useless for anything
>> beyond ordering Opera Garnier tickets, that the copyright status of
>> its output is not quite relevant and i don't expect this to change in
>> the next fifty years.
>>
>> --
>> אמיר אלישע אהרוני
>>
>> heb: http://haharoni.wordpress.com | eng: http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>> cat: http://aprenent.wordpress.com | rus: http://amire80.livejournal.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
>

For what it's worth, Google's language tools have drastically improved
over the years. They're getting really good, honestly.

That all being said, they're not perfect and a machine translation is still
no substitute for a human translator.

-Chad

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

2009/6/9 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
> Google has built in support for using its machine translation technology to
> help bootstrap human translations of Wikipedia articles.
>
> http://translate.google.com/toolkit/docupload
>
> The benefit to Google is clear - they need sentence-aligned text in multiple
> languages in order to bootstrap their automated system.
>
> This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help
> people, etc... I'm sure this is now the most efficient way to produce high
> quality translations of Wikipedia articles en masse.
>
> We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA
> licensed.
>
> /Brian

Under Google's TOS you cannot enter CC or GFDL produced by someone
else into the translation tool.

--
geni

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

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 00:26, Brian<Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu> wrote:
> Honestly, I should have learned by now to ignore comments like this. Google
> is the leading world expert on machine translation and they think it's a
> good idea. I understand why they think it's a good idea, you don't. You're
> shooting straight from the gut.

Not quite - i am finishing a degree in Linguistics and i work as an
NLP programmer, so i know the field a little.

Google is the leading world expert in searching vast amounts of text
in English, a language with next to no morphology. They aren't as good
at searching in Hebrew, Spanish and Russian. And their translation
software doesn't even cover Persian, a language with a relatively
simple morphology.

Google appear to assume that the statistical approach to machine
translation is the only one that matters and that their leadership in
search technologies makes them the leaders in machine translation.
They are wrong. The statistical approach helps, but humans don't think
only statistically. The grammars of even the best-researched languages
- English, French, German - are ridiculously far from being described
completely. When i say "grammar", i refer to the whole language
system: morphology, syntax, semantics, discourse analysis, typography,
prosody, phonology and more. We can't teach computers grammar, because
we don't really understand it ourselves, and without teaching
computers proper grammar, the statistical approach is very limited.

Google improved their translation software a little in the last couple
of years but they are many, many years away from being able to
translate a real text. Google translation paired with something like
[[Universal Networking Language]] or maybe OmegaWiki may yield better
results, but it will take many more years to complete. Of course,
something may change and Big Companies may start pouring a lot of
money into dictionary and grammar book writers. Until that happens,
expect improvements in machine translation to be Very Slow.

--
אמיר אלישע אהרוני
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

I thought there would be some caveat.

They might be willing to fix this for us. We'd want to contact the
translation team directly since they are the ones who created the interface
to Wikipedia.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:54 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/6/9 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
> > Google has built in support for using its machine translation technology
> to
> > help bootstrap human translations of Wikipedia articles.
> >
> > http://translate.google.com/toolkit/docupload
> >
> > The benefit to Google is clear - they need sentence-aligned text in
> multiple
> > languages in order to bootstrap their automated system.
> >
> > This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help
> > people, etc... I'm sure this is now the most efficient way to produce
> high
> > quality translations of Wikipedia articles en masse.
> >
> > We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA
> > licensed.
> >
> > /Brian
>
> Under Google's TOS you cannot enter CC or GFDL produced by someone
> else into the translation tool.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 00:54, geni<geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/6/9 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
>> We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA
>> licensed.
>>
>> /Brian
>
> Under Google's TOS you cannot enter CC or GFDL produced by someone
> else into the translation tool.

Where exactly do the TOS say it? I couldn't find it.

They would never find out about it anyway. In the current state of
things, any machine-translated text has to be edited manually and thus
it is not very different from translating a text using a dictionary -
and i believe that a human translator doesn't have to pay per-word
royalties to the dictionary publisher.

An unedited machine-translated text is likely to be speedily deleted
as patent nonsense, before copyvio is even considered.

--
אמיר אלישע אהרוני
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

I couldn't dwelve into the TOS, but as I see it you start with a GFDL text
and end up uploading a text directly to Wikipedia; which implies that Google
is okay with their text being used that way (you don't have to copy-paste,
google uploads the text for you, although it is saved under your username,
the edit summary and the text linking back to the oiginal soure article).
I guess, what's more interesting than adhering to Wikimedia's licensing
terms (which is implicit in the process) is what rights does Google gain to
your improved sentence-by-sentence translations. (They certainly use it as
translation suggestions, for one).

Best regards,
Bence Damokos

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 00:54, geni<geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2009/6/9 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
> >> We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA
> >> licensed.
> >>
> >> /Brian
> >
> > Under Google's TOS you cannot enter CC or GFDL produced by someone
> > else into the translation tool.
>
> Where exactly do the TOS say it? I couldn't find it.
>
> They would never find out about it anyway. In the current state of
> things, any machine-translated text has to be edited manually and thus
> it is not very different from translating a text using a dictionary -
> and i believe that a human translator doesn't have to pay per-word
> royalties to the dictionary publisher.
>
> An unedited machine-translated text is likely to be speedily deleted
> as patent nonsense, before copyvio is even considered.
>
> --
> אמיר אלישע אהרוני
> 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

This is a theory. Google has a different theory that is backed up by
results. The size of the sentence-aligned corpus determines the quality of
the translation. The algorithms are entirely secondary.

In the absence of a sentence aligned corpus one must be created. People want
good machine translations but such translations require people to first do
part of the work. It's a perfectly reasonable symbiotic relationship. There
is no reason to expect that this project 1) won't help Google and 2) won't
help Wikipedia.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 00:26, Brian<Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu> wrote:
> > Honestly, I should have learned by now to ignore comments like this.
> Google
> > is the leading world expert on machine translation and they think it's a
> > good idea. I understand why they think it's a good idea, you don't.
> You're
> > shooting straight from the gut.
>
> Not quite - i am finishing a degree in Linguistics and i work as an
> NLP programmer, so i know the field a little.
>
> Google is the leading world expert in searching vast amounts of text
> in English, a language with next to no morphology. They aren't as good
> at searching in Hebrew, Spanish and Russian. And their translation
> software doesn't even cover Persian, a language with a relatively
> simple morphology.
>
> Google appear to assume that the statistical approach to machine
> translation is the only one that matters and that their leadership in
> search technologies makes them the leaders in machine translation.
> They are wrong. The statistical approach helps, but humans don't think
> only statistically. The grammars of even the best-researched languages
> - English, French, German - are ridiculously far from being described
> completely. When i say "grammar", i refer to the whole language
> system: morphology, syntax, semantics, discourse analysis, typography,
> prosody, phonology and more. We can't teach computers grammar, because
> we don't really understand it ourselves, and without teaching
> computers proper grammar, the statistical approach is very limited.
>
> Google improved their translation software a little in the last couple
> of years but they are many, many years away from being able to
> translate a real text. Google translation paired with something like
> [[Universal Networking Language]] or maybe OmegaWiki may yield better
> results, but it will take many more years to complete. Of course,
> something may change and Big Companies may start pouring a lot of
> money into dictionary and grammar book writers. Until that happens,
> expect improvements in machine translation to be Very Slow.
>
> --
> אמיר אלישע אהרוני
> 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

2009/6/9 Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 00:54, geni<geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/6/9 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
>>> We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA
>>> licensed.
>>>
>>> /Brian
>>
>> Under Google's TOS you cannot enter CC or GFDL produced by someone
>> else into the translation tool.
>
> Where exactly do the TOS say it? I couldn't find it.
>

"By submitting your content through the Service, you grant Google the
permission to use your content permanently to promote, improve or
offer the Services"


"By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a
perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive
licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly
perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit,
post or display on or through, the Services."


You can't grant those rights if the copyright is held by a third
party. As a result you can't feed someone elses CC or GFDL content
into the system. There are probably other issues but the TOS is
unclear.


--
geni

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

current level of sophistication of translation tools, especialy of
languages that do not belog to the same group as english, german,
french, etc. is completely useless.

Machine translations into slavic languages are to be deleted from wiki
immediatealy.

masti

W dniu 09.06.2009 22:42, Brian pisze:
> Google has built in support for using its machine translation technology to
> help bootstrap human translations of Wikipedia articles.
>
> http://translate.google.com/toolkit/docupload
>
> The benefit to Google is clear - they need sentence-aligned text in multiple
> languages in order to bootstrap their automated system.
>
> This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help
> people, etc... I'm sure this is now the most efficient way to produce high
> quality translations of Wikipedia articles en masse.
>
> We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA
> licensed.
>
> /Brian
> _______________________________________________
> 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

I don't agree with this interpretation. Google provides an interface whereby
the user enters the URL to a Wikipedia article and Google imports the text
into their own service. The user does no importing.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:47 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/6/9 Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni@gmail.com>:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 00:54, geni<geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 2009/6/9 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
> >>> We should take the ToS to make sure the translated text can be CC-BY-SA
> >>> licensed.
> >>>
> >>> /Brian
> >>
> >> Under Google's TOS you cannot enter CC or GFDL produced by someone
> >> else into the translation tool.
> >
> > Where exactly do the TOS say it? I couldn't find it.
> >
>
> "By submitting your content through the Service, you grant Google the
> permission to use your content permanently to promote, improve or
> offer the Services"
>
>
> "By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a
> perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive
> licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly
> perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit,
> post or display on or through, the Services."
>
>
> You can't grant those rights if the copyright is held by a third
> party. As a result you can't feed someone elses CC or GFDL content
> into the system. There are probably other issues but the TOS is
> unclear.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

2009/6/9 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
> I don't agree with this interpretation. Google provides an interface whereby
> the user enters the URL to a Wikipedia article and Google imports the text
> into their own service. The user does no importing.

I think the odds of you successfully arguing that that does not fall
under submitting are pretty much zilch. In any case there are likely
other issues but that is just the most straightforward one.



--
geni

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

2009/6/9 masti <mastigm@gmail.com>:
> current level of sophistication of translation tools, especialy of
> languages that do not belog to the same group as english, german,
> french, etc. is completely useless.
>
> Machine translations into slavic languages are to be deleted from wiki
> immediatealy.
>
> masti

Slavic is in the same group as English, French and German. They are
all Indo-European. There is no lower level of relation between French
(romance language) and English (germanic)


--
geni

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

In the absence of a specific argument against my argument, my argument holds
- Google imports the data into their own service and there is no
contradiction.

Suppose however that my argument did not hold - that when Google download's
data to their own servers on behalf of a user this section of the ToS
becomes a legally binding contract between Google and the user. Is there a
contradiction between the ToS and Wikipedia's copyright policy?

On the one hand we have Google's ToS which states that when a user imports
data they grant Google rights that, legally, the user cannot grant. On the
other hand Google has clearly created a service that is meant to assist
Wikipedian's in translating articles from one language to another so that
the data might be imported back into Wikipedia. The very existence of such a
service, created for the express purpose of operating on GFDL/CC-BY-SA text,
automatically voids the statement in the ToS because it is nonsensical. If
Google were to try to make a legal claim on the content, which they would
not, they would have no legal basis on which to do so.

Regardless, I started this thread as a PSA. As another user pointed out, no
one would ever know if someone used Google Translate to translate a
Wikipedia article, so the whole conversation is largely pointless.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:03 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/6/9 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
> > I don't agree with this interpretation. Google provides an interface
> whereby
> > the user enters the URL to a Wikipedia article and Google imports the
> text
> > into their own service. The user does no importing.
>
> I think the odds of you successfully arguing that that does not fall
> under submitting are pretty much zilch. In any case there are likely
> other issues but that is just the most straightforward one.
>
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Brian<Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu> wrote:
> In the absence of a specific argument against my argument, my argument holds
> - Google imports the data into their own service and there is no
> contradiction.
>
> Suppose however that my argument did not hold - that when Google download's
> data to their own servers on behalf of a user this section of the ToS
> becomes a legally binding contract between Google and the user. Is there a
> contradiction between the ToS and Wikipedia's copyright policy?
>
> On the one hand we have Google's ToS which states that when a user imports
> data they grant Google rights that, legally, the user cannot grant. On the
> other hand Google has clearly created a service that is meant to assist
> Wikipedian's in translating articles from one language to another so that
> the data might be imported back into Wikipedia. The very existence of such a
> service, created for the express purpose of operating on GFDL/CC-BY-SA text,
> automatically voids the statement in the ToS because it is nonsensical. If
> Google were to try to make a legal claim on the content, which they would
> not, they would have no legal basis on which to do so.

I do not see your argument... There is a contract between Google and
the user, granting Google certain rights. Why does the fact that the
user (and/or Google) intends to use the material for something else
void this contract?

--
André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com

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

Google and the user entered into a completely different contract by agreeing
to operate on freely licensed content.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Andre Engels <andreengels@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Brian<Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu> wrote:
> > In the absence of a specific argument against my argument, my argument
> holds
> > - Google imports the data into their own service and there is no
> > contradiction.
> >
> > Suppose however that my argument did not hold - that when Google
> download's
> > data to their own servers on behalf of a user this section of the ToS
> > becomes a legally binding contract between Google and the user. Is there
> a
> > contradiction between the ToS and Wikipedia's copyright policy?
> >
> > On the one hand we have Google's ToS which states that when a user
> imports
> > data they grant Google rights that, legally, the user cannot grant. On
> the
> > other hand Google has clearly created a service that is meant to assist
> > Wikipedian's in translating articles from one language to another so that
> > the data might be imported back into Wikipedia. The very existence of
> such a
> > service, created for the express purpose of operating on GFDL/CC-BY-SA
> text,
> > automatically voids the statement in the ToS because it is nonsensical.
> If
> > Google were to try to make a legal claim on the content, which they would
> > not, they would have no legal basis on which to do so.
>
> I do not see your argument... There is a contract between Google and
> the user, granting Google certain rights. Why does the fact that the
> user (and/or Google) intends to use the material for something else
> void this contract?
>
> --
> André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

2009/6/10 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
> Google and the user entered into a completely different contract by agreeing
> to operate on freely licensed content.
>

Show me exactly where they entered into such an agreement.

Sane, non evil TOS service are not Google's strong point. Remember the
chrome mess?


--
geni

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

You're choosing not to get it. I can't help that.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:44 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/6/10 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
> > Google and the user entered into a completely different contract by
> agreeing
> > to operate on freely licensed content.
> >
>
> Show me exactly where they entered into such an agreement.
>
> Sane, non evil TOS service are not Google's strong point. Remember the
> chrome mess?
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

2009/6/10 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
> You're choosing not to get it. I can't help that.


So you can't actually back up your assertion.

--
geni

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

Not only did you not provide a critique of my more general claim (that the
user does not enter into a contract with Google regarding Wikipedia's data)
but you have no provided any sort of well founded critique of this one.
You've basically said, in both cases, "I don't believe that."

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:10 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/6/10 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
> > You're choosing not to get it. I can't help that.
>
>
> So you can't actually back up your assertion.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

That's really neat, I'm glad they worked on Wikipedia first. I'm sure
they are open to working with the licensing issues, they seem to like
to use a rather restrictive one as their default almost without
thinking about it, which I think is what happened with chrome also.
I'm sure they will be open to changing it.

The tool itself looks really nice too!

Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion

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

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Amir E. Aharoni<amir.aharoni@gmail.com> wrote:

> An unedited machine-translated text is likely to be speedily deleted
> as patent nonsense, before copyvio is even considered.
>
> --
> אמיר אלישע אהרוני
> Amir Elisha Aharoni
>
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com

If it is deleted as nonsense, that will be a gross error by the
administrator, at least in enWP. It is usually possible to roughly
understand what is meant in a Google translation. That's enough to
defeat speedy deletion. What these texts need is revision. I think of
them essentially as an automated dictionary.

If I have any understanding of the subject at all, my quite elementary
knowledge of French or German lets me compare the translation with the
original, and then rewrite the article into acceptable English much
more rapidly than if I had only the original text and a conventional
dictionary--essentially as I would do of texts translated into English
by someone with a good knowledge of the original language but a very
minimal knowledge of the target language, English and no grasp of
English idiom.

What I usually find in such translations is that only part of the
article is translated--sometimes only the lede paragraph, but rarely
including the references or figure legends or the like--which often
causes these articles to be nominated for deletion as non notable and
unsourced, by people too lazy to follow the interlanguage link.
.Almost never is there any search for the correct internal wikilinks

Even in languages I cannot actually read, such as the other Romance
languages , or Russian, I can generally at least add the references
section and fix some of the internal links, and thus preserve the
article for someone who can do better.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

>

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