@Pginer-WMF, I am thankful at last I have a place to share and exchange with your team what is the short coming, and what is good for the Wikimedia sphere.
以下、要点のみ日本語を併記します〈Omotecho発言〉。
That said, I am afraid we are forgetting about our readers, or those who are our temporary editors-to-come, remember Movement Strategy 2030? Are we sure jawp readers look at us Wikimedians doing our job to the max scale, feel safe to rely on our Projects/local Wikipedias, even to prep for their semester-end tests?〈読者への目を向けているか、運動戦略2030と整合性はあるか(将来の読者、寄稿者の確保)〉
I am very much keen to know where you stand your evaluation on the "lowness" of turned-down/deleted CX2 output on jawp, on what contrast-comparison. Could we discuss on hard numbers/analysis please? Would you point me to any research, meta, mediawiki, or scholastic papers?
I can counter your points:
- The deletion rate for translations is lower than the deletion rate for articles created without using Content Translation in Japanese Wikipedia (14%). 日本語版ウィキペディアで記事の削除率を比べると、CX2を使わなかった場合の14%よりCX2を使った方が低い。〈CX2を使わない=翻訳記事+書き下ろし記事を含むので一概に対比できない。CX2出力記事には自負して対処するグループはあるが、CX2を使わない記事群には管理者もしくは個別の有志しかいないため。〉
- # Are you comparing translated articles with/without CX2? Does those articles created without using Content Translation include original writings or not? FYI, in jawp and its deletion rate, there is no specific group watching for that larger group of translated articles, but ad hoc editors and sysops.
- Showing that writing the whole article without machine translation support does not make the articles less likely to be deleted. 機械翻訳の支援を受けずに書いた記事の方が削除が少ないと言えない。〈それは仮説になり得るが、ウィキペディア外で機械翻訳にかけた結果をコピペし、それを伏せたまま出稿できる以上、比較にならない。また機械翻訳のクセは学習できるので、それでウォッチャーが見破る、あるいは寄稿者はそこを加工すれば発覚しにくい面を、この分析は考慮に入れていない。〉
- # Maybe yes, but ppl copy Machine Translation output from translate.google.com and publish as their original article: by-pass CX2 altogether, and trained editor can break that tactics by MT specific features, which in turn, veteran cheaters are well aware of and mask/retouch such weak points.
- Assuming that all deleted translation were using machine translation, there would still be a majority of 81% of translations that were using machine translation but were not deleted. 削除された翻訳記事が全て機械翻訳を使っていたと仮定した場合でも、翻訳記事の81%は機械翻訳を使って存続した。〈もし機械翻訳を使った寄稿者数と、ウォッチして対処する編集者の数が半々なら、その見解に賛成できる。〉
- # if you have matching number of contributors applying machine translation and those counter-acting those publication, surely I will agree with you.
- Looking at the distribution by user expertise, less experienced users with a total edit count lower than 100 edits made 668 translations this year and had 20% of their translations deleted. More experienced users with an edit count over 1000 edits made 941 translations and had only 3% of their translations deleted. 利用者の経験の点。初学者で通算編集回数100回未満は翻訳記事を668本投稿し、削除率20%。同回数1千回超の利用者は同941本投稿し、削除率はわずか3%。〈Omotechoの個人的な感覚に非常に近い。統計値を求める手法をご教授願いたい。回数1千回超の利用者つまり「シニア」は(a)翻訳記事として受容されるレベルを覚えた。(b)そこそこの品質の翻訳記事に改良するコツは日本語版典拠の追加などすでにSethemhatさんからご披露した通り。CX2出力の翻訳記事をウォッチしている人々も忙しい合間を縫って、質の低い翻訳記事の改良方法を指南しているかと推測。〉
- # That sounds very interesting as I have seen the same trend. I wish to grab it statistically, and would you care to instruct me which API I will use and recreate your analysis? My hunch is that editors with 1000+ edit count, aka Seniors, are either self trained or we watchers have taught them; (a) what is acceptable as translated article, and (b) how to improve from the translation into good quality, as @Sethemhat has told you, as adding local citations and so forth. In a way, busy Translated Article watchers are doing our best to be instructive, not always grumble in angry tone.
It's very easy for me to forget about CX2 and leave the room, but my responsibility as the translator on Meta:CX2 page does not allow me to drop CX2.
Serving our readership.
May I ask what statistics for the editors/readers do you keep track of for those sectors?
〈読者対応 (1)CX2出力記事の対策者の数。3500名超の活発な寄稿者に対してフェアな割合かどうか判断を求める。(2)活動中の翻訳者の全数(経験値を問わず)と、CX2利用率の変遷。(3)日本語版ウィキペディアで寄稿されるCX2出力記事の統計、(a)総計、(b)削除・削除候補、(c)存続し他の編集者が加筆して成長。(1)-(3)については「CX2に満足している言語版」の統計を共有していただきたい。〉
- (1) CX2-output watchers are you aware of: Is it fair to have that small number of people to try and break their backs and safeguard quality of jawp, with active editorship 3,500+?
- (2) What is the total number of active translator on jawp, either Junior or Senior? Is CX2 helpful for them, or what per centage of them apply CX2, increasing/decreasing?
- (3) What statistics do you have for the CX2 output on regular/article namespace on jawp, (a) the total ; (b) declined or nominated for deletion ; and (c) successful and expanded by other editors? Ratio please?
- Compared with other language version Wikipedia where you assume users/readers are "happy" with CX2 output. Would you mind to share in this thread what figures of those three sectors (1)-(3) those counterpart wikipedia show and we can contrast with?
Quality versus publishing articles
Kindly try to track cases when Junior editors stops contributing after their first/second CX2 output on jawp. What statistics will you have?
〈品質:CX2を使って寄稿し、すぐにウィキペディアの活動が止まった利用者を追尾して統計を出してほしい。翻訳ウォッチャーは品質を重視していて書き下ろし記事よりも見方は厳しいかもしれない。〉
Quality is everything for translation watchers, maybe the threshold we put is stricter than non-translated articles. Sure, Junior editors try out CX2 (as they are encouraged by the system), and as a person myself who has translated the Meta page canvassing CX2 users, I feel very guilty that I am offering genuine hearted Junior editors to a field of hen-pecking, so to speak.
Instruction
We need better localized instructions on Meta page for CX2. Juniors are eager to be published, and that has to come with quality per jawp 方針.
〈メタウィキはCX2を使うように勧めてはいるが、使った時の副反応=ウィキペディアでどういう対応を受けるか説明するべきではないのか。それを知らずに使い、疲弊してウォッチャーに「叩かれた」からウィキメディアを去るのでは、あまりに悲惨。〉
But, I sense Senior editors, or Translated Articles / New Articles watchers, are too busy and worn out to give Junior editors/CX2 beginners good guidance on how to mature as translators. It is bitter to see Juniors being warned for their CX2 article and low quality, and heartbreaking to see them leave Wikimedia back into their usual busy SNS trend chasing.
On jawp, we who watch for CX2 output are so busy to tackle the target numbers accumulating, and I am sure you have looked into the workflow or records the group has accumulated data. That is behind the SMALL number you have pointed out.
〈CX2出力記事の品質チェックは人海戦術。CX2出力の質が悪い寄稿者に丁寧な指導ができない状態の解決策として、もし足りない人手を補うなら、ボランティアに今の例えば2倍の時間を費やせなどというナンセンスな話になってしまう。〉
As an example: to increase the number of watched/巡回済み CX2 output, you are asking me to increase 10% of my wiki-time watching CX2 under-quality output to 20% at least. Is it realistic? You might imagine the scenario as:
- Those very practical/dry comments supplied to Junior editors who did not post-edit MT output on CX2, is in line with CoC on jawp, but,
- written in jawp jargon which sounds intimidating to soft hearts of Juniors.
- And they are not often explained why they are scolded as if not obeying the basic rules of translation into ja language, or as if ignoring Code of Conduct. Because
- who care to post on Junior editors' User_talk pages are very much worn out to be in the shoes of a teacher or mentor.
Our future editors
Going through Junior to Senior phases, how can we take care of the Juniors who thought CX2 is a magic wand to publish their first article? But finding themselves bashed bacause they used CX2 as instructed by the system = us?
〈CX2が魔法の杖だと思って使ったら、それが原因で批判に晒されるのは、メタウィキの解説文書が対応不足では? 変更しなくて良いのか?〉
- No, Meta page on CX2 does not let them be prepared to the hardship if they do not thoroughly post edit machine translation (MT);
- No, jawp does not have the Mentorship project installed, which might be a set of seat belt for Juniors to endure the turmoil/jet coaster ride after their CX2 output published on Regular/article namespace. Because;
- No, we (Meta-users) don't advise them to publish their work on CX2 to their User:somebody/sandbox/article_name, and ask for advise/co-editing. Hense;
- The Meta documentation needs to be advanced, and assure Junior editor's independence to and good judgement at CX2.
Please see the issue as multi-faceted. It's not only Language, but involves mindset toward Wikimedia in the larger picture, and that is what we are learning together for Movement Strategy 2030. How can we stop the slowing down of outreach/new editors joining our Movement, if CX2 make their first steps very hard to walk through? And, is there any larger factor than MT that trap Junior editors publishing their translation into jawp pushed into criticism in which they are victims in part?
CX2 is a good tool, trust me, if it does not calculate my manual translation against its translation memory and shamelessly claim "hey, you are using MT!". To publish the fruit of my labor, I need to cheat the system, good example is illustrated by replies herein. That is not productive nor ethical to those who welcome your insight.
〈CX2を使ってもまるっきりの人力翻訳をしたところで、翻訳メモリと照合して一致率を出してくる。しきい値を超すためにすでに例を示したとおり小細工をすれば出稿できるが、本末転倒。個人的には倫理に反する点が苦しい。〉