Wikipedia:Translations

Articles on the same subject in separate languages are independently editable and edited; they are not required to be translations of one another or to strictly maintain a correspondence in form, style, content, or attitude (so long as they all accord with the NPOV policy), though it is hoped that polyglots who work in multiple languages will help spread new information around between the articles in different languages.

Translating entire articles into another language can be helpful when getting started, but there are some caveats:

• Translation is hard. Amateur translators tend to produce prose that is unnatural, and perhaps incorrect when it comes to specialized terminology.
• Machine translation is much much worse. Never use machine translation to create an article!

...

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump:

Vkem has been creating strange articles, see Aimo Cajander, Lauri Ingman, Väinö Tanner and Haltiatunturi. These seem to be machine-translations of some sort. For example, I compared Aimo Cajander and this Finnish website [1] (http://194.252.88.3/radioarkistoweb.nsf/sivut/poliitikko?opendocument&pageid=Content14251048177) (the fourth page that came up when searching on google for "Aimo Cajander"). The article looks like a word for word translation of this website. Are these copyright infringements? In any case the articles have to be rewritten to be human-understadable. -- Jniemenmaa 13:18 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

I just got a reply from Vkem on my talk page "Aimo Kajander is translated with Syntax 8.0 translator." -- Jniemenmaa 08:54 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Not having any experience of this Wikipedia project, I think I at least can contribute with a fresh opinion not tainted by Wikipedia culture. :->> I question the value of bad translations (which this is an example of) much more than the value of relatively mediocre English by writers of other mother tongues, as myself. (Not to mention the copyright problem.)

This issue is probably related to the in-extenso quotes from Encyclopedia Britannica in the edition of year 1911. In both cases it's duplication of information which already is available for any user of Wikipedia. In my eyes it might devaluate the value of Wikipedia. Careful consideration is called for.

When a writer needs support against his unsecure and un-idiomatic handling of English printed works in English are better than www-available, as they don't invite to paste-and-quote. :) -- Ruhrjung 11:39 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

We do indeed recommend against machine translation, for just this reason. Martin