 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
In November 2016, Google Neural Machine Translation was introduced, [1] resulting in a significant increase in the accuracy of machine translation. What does this mean for the use of Google Translate on Wikipedia?
- Jackson, Jeffrey L; Kuriyama, Akira; Anton, Andreea; Choi, April; Fournier, Jean-Pascal; Geier, Anne-Kathrin; Jacquerioz, Frederique; Kogan, Dmitry; Scholcoff, Cecilia; Sun, Rao (30 July 2019). "The Accuracy of Google Translate for Abstracting Data From Non–English-Language Trials for Systematic Reviews". Annals of Internal Medicine. 171 (9): 677. doi: 10.7326/M19-0891. ISSN 0003-4819.
- DuBose, Joy (3 October 2019). "Russian, Japanese, and Latin Oh My! Using Technology to Catalog Non-English Language Titles". Cataloging & Classification Quarterly. 57 (7–8): 496–506. doi: 10.1080/01639374.2019.1671929.
- Michael, Erica B.; et al. (2018). "Human use of machine translation to extract information from texts". In Lacruz, Isabel; Jääskeläinen, Riitta (eds.). Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research. John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 191–. ISBN 978-90-272-6475-6.
- Pros
- The accuracy of Google Translate continues to improve, and in many cases approaches the accuracy of human translation
- Use of non-English sources can help counter systemic bias on Wikipedia, which skews to Anglocentric and Eurocentric perspectives
- Cons
- Accuracy may not be sufficient for all uses, and human translation is still more accurate
- The reliability and due weight of non-English sources must be established
- Caveats
- Translation into English is usually more accurate than translation from English
- Translation from languages related to English (i.e., Indo-European languages) is more accurate than translation from unrelated languages
- ^ Lewis-Kraus, Gideon (14 December 2016). "The Great A.I. Awakening". The New York Times. Retrieved 1 February 2020.
- As of 2019, Wikipedians can use Google translations under a free license (cc-by-sa-3.0)
- Previously, Wikimedia Legal had said that Google's translations likely do not create new copyright burdens
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
In November 2016, Google Neural Machine Translation was introduced, [1] resulting in a significant increase in the accuracy of machine translation. What does this mean for the use of Google Translate on Wikipedia?
- Jackson, Jeffrey L; Kuriyama, Akira; Anton, Andreea; Choi, April; Fournier, Jean-Pascal; Geier, Anne-Kathrin; Jacquerioz, Frederique; Kogan, Dmitry; Scholcoff, Cecilia; Sun, Rao (30 July 2019). "The Accuracy of Google Translate for Abstracting Data From Non–English-Language Trials for Systematic Reviews". Annals of Internal Medicine. 171 (9): 677. doi: 10.7326/M19-0891. ISSN 0003-4819.
- DuBose, Joy (3 October 2019). "Russian, Japanese, and Latin Oh My! Using Technology to Catalog Non-English Language Titles". Cataloging & Classification Quarterly. 57 (7–8): 496–506. doi: 10.1080/01639374.2019.1671929.
- Michael, Erica B.; et al. (2018). "Human use of machine translation to extract information from texts". In Lacruz, Isabel; Jääskeläinen, Riitta (eds.). Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research. John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 191–. ISBN 978-90-272-6475-6.
- Pros
- The accuracy of Google Translate continues to improve, and in many cases approaches the accuracy of human translation
- Use of non-English sources can help counter systemic bias on Wikipedia, which skews to Anglocentric and Eurocentric perspectives
- Cons
- Accuracy may not be sufficient for all uses, and human translation is still more accurate
- The reliability and due weight of non-English sources must be established
- Caveats
- Translation into English is usually more accurate than translation from English
- Translation from languages related to English (i.e., Indo-European languages) is more accurate than translation from unrelated languages
- ^ Lewis-Kraus, Gideon (14 December 2016). "The Great A.I. Awakening". The New York Times. Retrieved 1 February 2020.
- As of 2019, Wikipedians can use Google translations under a free license (cc-by-sa-3.0)
- Previously, Wikimedia Legal had said that Google's translations likely do not create new copyright burdens