Again, your proposal is nothing short of machine translation because
it includes using a machine to convert between different syntaxes,
grammars, vocabularies, etc. Apparently you already realise this and
think there's nothing wrong with that.
But the fact remains that machine translation is not as reliable as
you say. If you have some sort of working model, then perhaps people
will be willing to trust you, but I checked with some Wikipedians
(both those I agree with most of the time and those I usually disagree
with) and the general consensus is that in this proposal you're off
your rocker.
Mark
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:00:49 -0500, Stirling Newberry
<stirling.newberry(a)xigenics.net> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2004, at 3:53 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
Machine translation is unworkable to the degree
that it is still not
reasonable to use it to provide multilingual content and expect it to
be reasonably correct.
Nothing in your rant is reponsive to the proposal, and much of it is
inaccurate, even given the strawman that it is attacking.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l