Our data is released under various Creative Commons licenses.More information
If you love this content, please consider a donation.
Wall (6,960 threads)
Tips
Before asking a question, make sure to read the FAQ.
We aim to maintain a healthy atmosphere for civilized discussions. Please read our rules against bad behavior.
morbrorper
4 hours ago
marafon
5 days ago
CK
5 days ago
sharptoothed
10 days ago
Cangarejo
11 days ago
Cangarejo
14 days ago
Thanuir
14 days ago
ondo
14 days ago
ddnktr
15 days ago
ondo
15 days ago
User ann1010 is a spammer:
Hello,
My name is ann i saw your profile here(tatoeba.org)
today and became intrested in you,i will also like to know you the more and estabilish a relationship that is bassed
on truth and trust with you i want you to send an email to my email address so i can
give you my picture for you to know whom i am.Here is my email address (annkarume3@yahoo.com)
I am waiting for your mail to my email address above please i have something very very important i will like to tell you.I believe we can start from here!
Remeber the distance or colour does not matter but love matters alot in life.
It should be ok now. I've deleted the messages and block the "user".
This is discriminatory against polyamorous people...
yup but the she didn't send me a message :(
Me neither :( But you are Tux the penguin and I'm a silhouette, not the most attractive partners for a polyamorous person ;)
thanks allan! thank you very much for blocking it.
an user with nickname "ann1010" sends us desperate messages (spam)!!! please change its status to spammer
[not needed anymore- removed by CK]
What your stats and list of activities don't mention either are linking of sentences, which is also very important to Tatoeba.
[not needed anymore- removed by CK]
I know. But it could well be that hidden contributors do just that...
[not needed anymore- removed by CK]
Tatoeba's unsung heroes...
[not needed anymore- removed by CK]
I'm convinced some clever and dedicated fan will find a way to spare this to them as they focus on the new version...
>If TRANG or syko think it's a good idea, they should be able to automate it.
Consider that such a list might work as an incentive for some users.
When I add sentences I can activate automatic detection. On what is this automatic detection based?
on a Google api, on the future we will move on our own system, as they support less languages than us.
I see, thanks. I had hoped that I could somehow help to make Low Saxon automatically detectable, but Google usually doesn't give a fuck about languages that are not commercially exploitable due to lack of a sizable and demanding internet population.
So I'll have to wait until Tatoeba gets its own system. Is this something worked on or just an idea for the distant future?
distant future, the current priority for me is the new version, though thanks to some users, I've already gathered some information about already existing algorithms which do this job.
Proposal for a tatoeba game:
simple game:
one add the beginning of a sentence, doesn't finish it , unadopt it, and anyone can finish it (or also choose to not finish it).
such sentences will be tagged so that we can keep a trace of them and delete sentences which stay too long as uncomplete (more than 6 days, so this way they will not be present in more than one export).
what do you think?
[not needed anymore- removed by CK]
》Additionally, one problem will be that some of these will never be completed, so we'll end up with things that are not sentences in the database.
“such sentences will be tagged so that we can keep a trace of them and delete sentences which stay too long as uncomplete (more than 6 days, so this way they will not be present in more than one export).”
[not needed anymore- removed by CK]
yup I did propose such a "pre-validation" pool some times ago on the wall, I will try to find back the thread tomorow.
>I wonder if you could somehow create a sub-section of Tatoeba.org for game-like activities like this and also for "needs native speaker check," "non-sentences", "@change" and similar material. Then, once these things are completed or corrected, move them to the main Tatoeba.org project.
I thought about this and actually, many sentences that have been reviewed by natives and even tagged "OK" are still invalid. Example: http://tatoeba.org/epo/sentence...nt-101571(look at the history...)
So that is just putting the problem elsewhere.
We must live with the fact that perfection is an ongoing process, never to be achieved...
It could create unusual/creative sentences, which is good… but also not unnaturally-sounding sentences, which is not that good.
I have some hope on the capability of the participants to remember that this game is still inside Tatoeba.
Ça me semble amusant, pourquoi pas ? :)
http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/1022298 tag @complete me
http://tatoeba.org/fre/sentences/show/1022298
Complété, excusez moi, j'étais parti dormir peu après avoir envoyé ce message ^^"
par contre gardez en tete que cela reste dans le cadre de Tatoeba, ce n'est pas le club oulipo. Donc essayez d'obtenir une phrase vraisemblable ^^
Ce jeu est une variante du "cadavre exquis" des surréalistes.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadavre_exquis
Merci de la correction, je pensais à tort que cela venait du mouvement oulipo.
Bon c'est pas totalement ça parce qu'il faudrait qu'on ne voie que les derniers mots de la phrase pour la continuer...
David Bowie avait également l'habitude d'écrire ses textes en découpant des phrases en bandelettes de papiers qu'il mélangeait ensuite, ce qui a d'ailleurs donné parfois de très beau textes, très énigmatiques, car le succès d'une chanson est souvent de laisser la place à l'imagination de celui qui l'écoute et parce que ces vers sont uniques et totalement improbables.
Oui tout le principe du variante.
Je ne savais pas pour David Bowie, bon je ne perds pas foi en l'utilité didactique de ce mur.
Il serait possible de faire un programme qui tirerait des phrases au hasard se terminant par des rimes déterminées, et d'un nombre de pieds déterminé, pour créer des poèmes ou des textes de chansons.
Ça pourrait être une source de revenus pour Tatoeba, si ces textes sont proposés à des chanteurs connus...
Tatoeba pourrait ainsi se financer par les droits d'auteurs indirects...
oui en réutilisant les métas-données du wiktionnary (qui à défaut de contenir des mots ou des définitions exempts de tout reproche) qui contiennent entre autre la prononciations des mots, il serait possible d'obtenir facilement une prononciation brut d'une phrase (sur laquelle le logiciel aurait pour tâche d'appliquer les régles de liaisons et éventuelles licence poétiques).
To be continued…
since this webpage didn't work..
http://blog.tatoeba.org/2010/08...f-content.html
..I just wanted to ask a quick question about sentence submission.
If I see a sentence in a Japanese textbook (or any medium), am I allowed to translate it into English on here as long as I don't actually include the original Japanese sentence on the website?
For example. If I posted a sentence in English (that I had translated from Japanese previously) and then when a Japanese native finally arrived I might be able to privately show him/her the Japanese sentence I was looking at.
Is it still considered "derivative works" even if the original sentence in Japanese is not published anywhere here?
After all, my translation of the sentence may not be accurate so it seems a bit strange to put a block on it.
on a strictly legal point of view I will say the law doesn't care if the original and derivative work are on the same website /medium. And the fact your translation is accurate or not is actually not relevant there, because a work becomes derivative as soon as (to make it short) you really have needed the original one to create it. (You may be a bad painter, if you try to make a post-modern version of the Jocond, it's still a derivative work(of a public domain work so you're allowed to do it, but still a derivative work))
on a "real life" point of view, I will say that then it becomes very hard to check, but you can understand that I can't approve it. Tatoeba was created to propose an alternative to people who can't afford/ don't want to pay for textbook or material under copyright. I have some difficulties to express it in English, but to me the complete beauty of this project is the possibility to claim "we all do it in fair way, and for all the non-believer, now do finally believe us it's possible to create a good ressource without reliying on other copyrighted source"
Everybody on Youtube seems to put up this Copyright Act disclaimer along the lines of "purely for educational, non-profit purposes" and they seem to mostly get away with it.
But alas! I won't debate with you as you seem to know a lot more than me on the subject! I haven't done anything as of yet but I suppose there probably thousands of sentences already on the site that have just pasted from here to there but of course it doesn't make it any more right.
I think the phrase we want here is "turning a blind eye" and I think what some forget is that most of us are not scholars from ancient Greece and we don't routinely formulate our own philosophy.
The only sentences I've seen that are remotely sophisticated are ones posted by sacredceltic but even they are clearly paraphrased from the original work of whoever. It might be his own sentence construction but the core meaning has been taken from elsewhere, right?
Maybe you will tell me that paraphrasing and translating are different in the eyes of the law? I'm not really sure but if that is the case then I shall start paraphrasing instead!
"purely for educational, non-profit purposes"
But we do redistribute the work, at the opposite of youtube etc.
One of the goal of tatoeba, is to be re-used by other websites, books etc. to avoid the duplication of work made to collect these databases, and to spend more time in improving the wheel than reinveting it. And in my opinion we should permit "profit" use, for at least one case: Mister X want to propose the content of tatoeba to people living far away from the internet/electricity, the admin of tatoeba don't have the time/financial ressource to edit books and send them to these people. So Mister X decide to take the financial risk to edit these books, he do participate in the work by providing a nice presentation for the book, solve all the logisitic
problems etc. , the licence under which tatoeba is provided only oblige him to tell "this book is derivated from tatoeba", so that people can know that if they have an access to the internet, they can use it. So at the end they can get rid of that "commercial" stuff. Here I think it is a good example, because though it's not the best solution, here it is at least "better than nothing". And we can provide this only if we can say of good faith "every original author agree to let us doing this".
>The only sentences I've seen that are remotely sophisticated are ones posted by sacredceltic but even they are clearly paraphrased from the original work of whoever. It might be his own sentence construction but the core meaning has been taken from elsewhere, right?
for this actually we're saved, in France you can't copyright ideas, but only the "physical form", so I can write a book exposing my ideal behind Tatoeba under a very strict licence (the same as most of book, would be kinda contradictive uh?), and you can write a second book as a reply to mine without needing my permission. Because you based your work not on the word I've chosen but on the idea I've transmitted.
After you can only paraphrase a book, because a book is not only a set of sentences but also a story line etc.
But for single sentences it may be fine.
Forget to mention it, but for sentences which come from copyrighted source (there was a lot from the takana corpus), we delete them as soon as we're aware that a sentence is violating copyright. For the justice there's a difference between "tatoeba contain some copyrighted content, the admin first didn't know it, but deleted them as soon as he was aware of it" and "tatoeba contains [...] and the admin even encourage people to add new ones", and huge one. On one you will get the possiblity to remove them before a sanction because you're of good faith, and for the other you wil get your service closed.
As I've already said to other users by the past, I'm the first to really be sorry of the current situation, but I really do want to play fair to show that we don't need copyrighted material to produce something great, and that this something great can become even greater due to it's inner property of being free.
an other things (as I was discussing about it)
Youtube and the English wikipedia can do some kind of quotation due to the American "fair use exception", which does not exist in a lot of country (at least not in France).
(of course my comments are not intented to blame you of thinking so, it took me several years to gather all this knowledge, and I prefer people who asks rather than doing it by assuming they "feel" what is legal and what is not)
>The only sentences I've seen that are remotely sophisticated are ones posted by sacredceltic but even they are clearly paraphrased from the original work of whoever. It might be his own sentence construction but the core meaning has been taken from elsewhere, right?
I take my sentences and translations from nowhere else than my head, except for a few quotations that I attribute to their authors through tags. I do not paraphrase anything.
(got my tenses mixed up in the middle there somewhere - it's been a long day)
It's actually I good question! But I guess a law master is required here :p
How many tokens are you willing to burn on a lawyer?
Afin d'éviter les comportements de certains trolls, consistant à intervenir sans maîtrise du leur sang froid ou des limites du sujet de la discussion, je propose que le droit de s'exprimer fasse l'objet d'un permis à points, par lequel le droit de s'exprimer serait inversement proportionnel au nombre de messages et commentaires non pertinents ou irrespectueux. Les commentaires et les messages du mur pourraient être signalés ; des avertissements puis des sanctions seraient prisent si de nombreuses personnes sont gênées par ceux-ci et qu'il n'y a pas d'évolution positive du comportement de l'auteur.
On pourrait faire trois premiers avertissements gratuits, puis ensuite un message indiquerait qu'il doit attendre (1 * nombre de fois où c'est déjà arrivé avant) journées avant de pouvoir commenter ou écrire sur le mur à nouveau.
Je pense qu'un tel système présenterait le double avantage que les gens qui sont socialement incapable de participer à une discussion pacifique pourront toujours ajouter de nombreuses phrases de qualité, et que Tatoeba bénéficiera d'une ambiance bien plus propice à la collaboration et moins à la fuite des nouveaux membres traumatisés.
Afin d'éviter le comportement de certains vandales, consistant à intervenir dans toutes les discussions et débats, sans pour autant avoir contribué à Tatoeba de manière significative, je propose que le droit de s'exprimer fasse l'objet d'un système de jetons, par lequel le nombre de publications sur le mur et de commentaires serait proportionnel au nombre de contributions de phrases.
On pourrait faire 3 premiers commentaires gratuitement, puis ensuite, un message indiquerait à l'utilisateur qu'il doit contribuer x phrases pour avoir de nouveau droit à un commentaire.
Un commentaire par phrase créée et une publication sur le mur toutes les 50, me paraîtraient une bonne mesure...
Je pense qu'un tel système présenterait le double avantage de susciter les contributions et d'éviter des disputes avec des personnes dont c'est la spécialité exclusive et qui confondent Tatoeba avec un forum.
Je suis absolument contre cette idée, car elle est liberticide.
Mais pour aller dans un sens constructif, je propose plutôt un système qui permette d'évaluer les commentaires : chaque commentaire pourrait être voté positif ou négatif par n'importe quel membre. Les commentaires ayant reçu un grand nombre de vote négatifs seraient masqués (mais pas invisibles, déroulables). Ainsi les commentaires les plus intéressants seraient démarqués.
Si vous voulez voir ce système en action sur un site, il y a stackoverflow qui le compte.
So you are proposing a thumbs up/thumbs down system which would be visible only to the administrators?
I think that's a very good idea because members won't be follow others like sheep and they would, in theory, rate each post/comment solely based on their own opinion.
In my idea the thumb up/thumb down was open and visible to anyone registered on the website. But your alternative sounds interesting :)
Hehe I guess making it visible would be ok as well. I just wanted to avoid that situation on Youtube where you have people saying "Thumbs up if you think the Queen is hot!" and then everybody thumbs up and it just becomes a bit of a farce ;)
Hot or not...was the ancestor of Youtube...
youtube et linuxfr font aussi comme cela, pour linuxfr il y a possiblité sur son compte de changer la valeur à partir de laquelle un commentaire n'est plus montré.
sur slashdot il y a aussi un systeme similaire, mais la c'est plutôt l'inverse, seule certain commentaires sont déroulés.
oui, il faut faire qc contre les gens qui disent "merci"...!
ben en général, quand tu remercies, c'est que tu as contribué, qu'on t'a corrigé, et que la correction était de plus utile...Donc je vois pas comment cette faculté serait limitée...
ben avec le "merci" pour la correction je perdrais mon jeton gagné avec cette contribution. donc au lieu de remercier je vais plutôt m'acheter une blague sur le mur..
avec le système d'étoile sur les commentaires, la coche de l'étoile ferait office de remerciement.
Quid de l'apprenant qui pose des questions en commentaires sur les phrases qu'il ne comprend pas, ou sur lesquelles il voudrait avoir plus de renseignement, doit-il contribuer pour avoir se droit de poser une question? (C'est une question réelle ici, comme tu proposes un système, pour voir comment les différents cas d'utilisation de tatoeba s'y intégrerait)
Ben on pourrait ne pas compter les commentaires sur ses propres phrases...
Ceux qui répondent aux questions des autres ne sont pas forcément les mêmes que ceux qui ajoutent les phrases.
Et les apprenants ne posent pas forcément des questions sur leurs propres phrases.
Ben Tatoeba n'a pas besoin d'apprenants à solde négatif. Tu veux apprendre quelque chose ? Tu donnes en échange ! C'est juste ! Autrement tu te contentes de lire gratuitement et c'est déjà pas mal !
Bien sûr que si, d'une part un apprenant n'a pas forcément les compétences ou le temps nécessaires pour ajouter des phrases correctes, et d'autre part la raison primale pour laquelle tatoeba a été créé, c'est de permettre d'apprendre du vocabulaire dans une langue que l'on apprend.
Tatoeba a besoin de ceux qui ont besoin de tatoeba.
C'est quoi le but ? avoir une superbe base de phrases et la garder précieusement sous clé dans un endroit tenu secret à l'abri de toute contamination par des personnes non préalablement cooptées ?
et quid de moi qui en ce moment ne contribue pas mais poste plein de message.
et qui efface mes messages...Bien fait!
il ne sont pas effacé mais déplacé, c'est bien connu, rien ne se perd ...
Sinon oui la nature ayant horreur du vide, je me dois de remplacer les messages n'étant plus présent ici par quelque chose.
pour effacer des messages d'autres, on gagnera des jetons...
tu ne ferais plus aucun des deux... c'est simple
Maybe it would be smart to have one wall for general discussion (this one) which could be moderately moderated (work with me here) and then another wall just for grammar Q&A etc. which could be closely monitored so that people couldn't possibly stray off topic.
Then you could restrict access to the general discussion wall under whatever limits but always allow users access to the grammar section.
In theory it should work but I can see how it might just turn into "The Wall Number 2".
I thought it was worth mentioning, anyway.
Mais ceci étant, ce serait une très bonne idée de mettre un indicateur sur les commentaires, pour dire qu'on les juge utiles ou pas. Ça permettrait d'évaluer qui fait les commentaires utiles et qui les bavardages et autres agressions inutiles...
Voilà une bonne solution:
On met un indicateur (une étoile à cocher) sur les commentaires avec un libellé « si vous trouvez ce commentaire utile pour cette phrase, cochez-le » et chaque fois que l'étoile est cochée (une seule coche possible par utilisateur et par commentaire) le compteur de l'auteur du commentaire est alimenté.
Ce compteur est rapporté au nombre total de commentaires qu'il a fait. Ça donne un ratio qui lui ouvre droit à un quota de commentaires.
Si ton ratio baisse, ton quota baisse. Donc plus tu fait de commentaires considérés par les autres comme utiles, plus tu peux en faire et inversement.
Si tu fais trop de commentaires jamais jugés utiles, ton quota de départ expire et tu ne peux plus rien commenter. Bien fait!
je suppose un système de jetons: pour chaque ligne qu'on a codé pour tatoeba on a le droit de faire une proposition quoi d'autre on pourrait coder...
et on pourrait vendre nos jetons ?
ouais, on pourrait même les introduire en bourse...
Pas con...
*je propose
Haha that's a fantastic idea. We'll leave you to it, shall we?
Le problème avec ce principe c'est que les programmeurs qui ont le moins d'idées ont le plus de possibilités de les réaliser...Tu termines avec un chômage généralisé et alors il faut prévoir un filet social, une augmentation des impôts, des emplois fictifs...
Une ligne à coder pour une ligne codée, sinon ce n'est pas juste :D
pourquoi pas, pas contre je n'irai pas jusqu'à retirer le droit de commenter, car sinon une personne qui ne peut plus commenter, c'est une personne qui ne peut plus non plus se racheter en se mettant à ajouter des bons commentaires.
Bon alors tu les maintiens sous respiration assistée : 1 commentaire par 24h. Si ce commentaire-là est jugé utile, tu multiplies le quota par 2, etc...
mais il faudra aussi une possibilité de juger les jugements. car il y a vraiment des gens qui jugent utile l'inutile et vice versa !
C'est la vie, mais la théorie de la sagesse des foules dit que la foule a raison au final...Or ce sont les grandes masses qui comptent en la matière, pas les jugements unitaires...La loi du marché, quoi !
And if a member does not wish to show their thanks when others correct their sentences (and even provide sources or an explanation), they should be liable to forfeit some of these "tokens".
All agreed?
>si l'on efface nos propres commentaires, est-ce qu'ils seront considérés "non-faits" et on aura le droit de laisser plus de commentaires?
Je pense que les gens qui effacent leurs commentaires, comme U2FS, CK ou Esocom, devraient être pénalisés. C'est simplement insupportable de malhonnêteté !
Oui, je sais que tu ne l'aimes pas du tout, mais si l'on ne peut écrire que cinq commentaires, par exemple, et on veut laisser le sixième, je voulais savoir si on aurait l'option d'effacer un en échange d'écrire un autre.
Moi, je n'efface jamais mes commentaires, mais si je devais effacer un d'eux pour pouvoir laisser une correction ou une réponse à un "NNC" (désolée, je ne me rappelle pas comment ça s'appelle en français...), je le ferais.
>Oui, je sais que tu ne l'aimes pas du tout
Ce n'est pas une question de goût. Les gens qui effacent leurs opinions après les avoir exprimées et qu'on y ait répondu sont juste des lâches, des traîtres et des faux-culs ! On les connaît !
Moi, je me targue de ne JAMAIS effacer un des mes commentaires après qu'on y ait répondu (la seule circonstance dans laquelle je me l'autorise est pour faire une correction orthographique AVANT qu'on y réponde, pour rendre mon commentaire plus lisible pour les étrangers) !
J'ai fait plus de 6000 commentaires sur Tatoeba et je les assume tous !
Je pense que je vais rapporter ce message à TatoebaPeaceKeeper.
Te gêne pas...
Je pense que ces gens doivent autant avoir une raison de supprimer leurs commentaires que toi de les garder. Après, il faut accepter qu'on puisse penser différemment, et en passant ne pas forcer ces gens là à une seule et même façon de penser...
Moi je pense que si tu assumes pas ton opinion, il ne faut pas l'exprimer...
Tournez 7 fois votre langue dans votre bouche !
C'est uniquement ton point de vue, et sûrement pas le leur...
ouais, j'ai pas encore trouvé la manière d'exprimer l'opinion des autres...mais je cherche...
Il faut juste accepter bêtement, sans forcément chercher à comprendre, c'est un peu dur, mais c'est possible !
Bon courage pour chercher à exprimer soi même les opinions des autres !
Mais ton idée de contrôler le nombre de commentaires qu'on peut laisser pourrait provoquer que le nombre de personnes qui effacent leurs commentaires augmente, surtout s'ils peuvent écrire un autre commentaire s'ils effacent le premier.
Il suffirait de ne pas décompter les effacements, ou au contraire, de les compter double...
Euh I think it should depend on the situation. A couple of days ago, for example, the same person corrected around 40 of my sentences, but I just said "thank you" to him once through a private message. Should I be penalized for not having made it public and in all the sentences?
Et une autre question, si l'on efface nos propres commentaires, est-ce qu'ils seront considérés "non-faits" et on aura le droit de laisser plus de commentaires?
If you thanked him once in a private message then of course that is absolutely fine.
That's why I said "sentences" rather than each individual sentence. We can't be expected to thank somebody a million times.
I was attempting to highlight those individuals who do not give any thanks at all.
I've already come across people who have thanked me straight away and also people that don't seem to plan on ever thanking me.
A little thanks goes a long way, whether it be as a comment or as a private message.
But I think that would be quite hard to control (now not only the number of comments left, but also the comments themselves and the private messages should be looked at), unless of course, the user who had not been said "thank you" complained to the administrator about this; although I would never complain publicly about such little thing, honestly. I think the administrators have more important things to do.(That's just my opinion, of course)
I suppose it would be better to integrate this into some system where, for example, each user gets a score of 100.
Each time that user does something that another member doesn't like, that member could click "dislike" on their profile and a set value (perhaps 0.1) would be deducted from that score of 100. Perhaps if there is a requirement to provide some small reason or evidence for doing so, everything would be more transparent for the admins. Also, admins (just trang and sysko) could have a heavier weighting (perhaps 2 or 3 points) so when they click "dislike" there would be a significantly larger deduction. The clicks for or against would be totally invisible to the regular users so, again, there shouldn't be any foul play.
Evidently, putting in place the exact same system but with "like" and a requiring a reason why you are clicking "like" would be helpful.
If it all works out, the admins can see who is being disruptive but they can also see their positive contributions and therefore maybe encourage them in the right direction.
This system would work regardless of the number of comments or sentences posted because it's more to do with the general behaviour of users and interaction with others.
If some simple statistics were kept then the admins could actually see trends. For example, Person A may be losing points very quickly after he said "xxxxx". Person B may be gaining a lot of points since he provided a very good explanation on a difficult sentence translation.
I'm not a programmer so I don't whether or not this can be done but I hope you can at least consider it.
By the way, I'm sorry that I'm not speaking in French when everybody else is. I can understand all the French but I'd rather not make myself look stupid by writing a load of garbage that doesn't make sense, so please don't think I'm being "imperialist" by insisting on speaking English.
Don't worry, even "imperialist" English is accepted on the wall ;-), it's a language after all, and
http://tatoeba.org/spa/sentences/show/785667
but I am sorry, I don't like this idea. I would not like to be judged, and, despite loving this project and not being conflictive, maybe I'd leave this place if I was publicly controlled in such way.
Probably the same here.
>By the way, I'm sorry that I'm not speaking in French when everybody else is. I can understand all the French but I'd rather not make myself look stupid by writing a load of garbage that doesn't make sense, so please don't think I'm being "imperialist" by insisting on speaking English.
We don't, that's exactly what we usually do the other way!
Welcome to the idiots' club!
It seems like you've really caused a revolution in terms of languages used on the wall!
I'm very lucky that French is so close to English or I would have very little luck understanding these long posts.
Anyhow, I'm keeping away from the wall for a good month now and all I'll be doing is adding sentences or translations.
I won't apologise for anything I said on the "hey guys" thread but I'll promise not to call YOU a "guy" anymore if it really hurts you that much.
Right, enjoy your discussion about website changes and I hope you'll take a lot at my proposals in good faith, without viewing them as silly ideas from a little Englishman who only joined a few days ago.
and for each line of your comment, you'd have to insert a correct sentence in Japanese...
Je trouve que ton idée fait s'éloigner tatoeba du monde libre, et le fait avancer du bridage et de la carotte devant l'âne...
C'est un peu comme si on devait rapporter 3 bugs du'n logiciel avant de pouvoir accéder à son code source....
Il y a aussi une branche anarchiste de Tatoeba, menée par Pandark, mais la CIA prépare une opération pour jeter toutes ses phrases dans l'Atlantique Sud, par hélicoptère, avec du béton coulé aux pieds...
Correct me if I misunderstood all the French because I'm by no means any good at it.
Are you basically saying that the voices of newcomers will be blocked if they have not posted enough contributions?
If that is the case, it sounds to like a case of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. The people who happen to have been around for longer will gain some god-like status and the people who have just joined will eventually be treated almost like the scum of the earth.
That's just my opinion so feel free to pick it apart. I know you want to.
The fact that sacredceltic having 100,000 contributions and compared to my 50 doesn't affect my ability to have "discussions" with him is a good way to show equality on the website. I think if you take that away, it'll set a dodgy precedent.
I stated precisely the contrary, writing that it should be considered over 24/48 hours time slots...
Now if you contributed as much as you babble...
I've contributed more than I've "babbled" so far actually.
It's all right, I love you really. You're my guy after all :)
Ouais, je suis un esclavagiste, tandis que sysko est un adepte de la société de classes...in fine, ça revient au même...
je pense d'ailleurs écrire un manifeste
Je vais y réfléchir et en discuter avec Trang,
Par contre pour ce qui est des commentaires, je viens de regarder et par exemple Dominiko a environ 3600 commentaires pour 2000 phrases, donc je pense que ce système bien qu'il pourrait en effet avoir les avatanges que tu exposes, pourrait avoir pour dommage collatéral d'être nuisible aux personnes comme dominiko qui préfère améliorer la qualité du corpus en commentant les phrases plutôt qu'en ajoutant.
Oui, mais on ne serait pas obligé de considérer le passé. On ne considérerait que les dernières 24 ou 48 heures, par exemple...
Ben dans le cas de Dominiko, je trouve que ça ne lui ferait pas de mal non plus de créer davantage de phrases: http://tatoeba.org/epo/sentences/show/474103
Certes mais après si une personne ne veut contribuer qu'une demi-heure par jour à Tatoeba, et qu'il est bon en français mais n'a pas une imagination débordante et ne parle pas plusieurs langues (je ne parle plus du cas particulier de Dominiko), il est sûrement plus avantageux pour tous qu'il corrige. De même si j'ai un ami étranger à qui je demande de relire les phrases chinoises que j'ajoute, il va me corriger pour m'aider mais n'a surement pas envie de passer plus de temps que cela sur le projet.
Je pense que ce serait limité le panel de "bon comportement" à "un bon contributeur est un contributeur qui ajoute"
ah c'est parce que tu ne veux pas que Tatoeba ait plus de phrases, avoue ! Tu es une sorte de malthusien des phrases, sysko...
La conjecture de Moore dit pourtant que tu auras un serveur 2 fois plus puissant l'année prochaine, donc tu n'as vraiment aucune excuse...
non pire je suis égoiste, je suis pour que Dominiko ne fasse qu'une chose, corriger mes phrases françaises. Je pense d'ailleurs implémenter un système où l'on ne pourrait ajouter une phrase que si elle est traduction d'une de mes phrases et un commentaire que s'il est pour corriger les dites phrases. Étant bon prince, il y aurait des passe-droits pour les plus méritants.
J'ai moi-même une conjecture qui dit que plus il y a de phrases, plus elles sont correctes, parce que d'une part la concurrence oblige à l'excellence, et d'autre part l'habitude rend plus rigoureux.
D'ailleurs, j'aimerais bien vérifier cette conjecture en mesurant l'évolution du taux de commentaires des contributeurs en fonction du temps...
Ne serait-ce pas plutot "plus une personne a de phrases plus elles sont correctes" (avec une augmentation de la densité de phrases correctes avec le temps, toujours pour un utilisateur donné) ?
oui, mais je prétends que le phénomène est également collectif car la pression collective augmente...
Il faudrait vérifier en combien de temps un utilisateur fait 2 fois moins de fautes d'une année sur l'autre, pour voir si l'augmentation du nombre de contributeurs a changé cela...
hmmm je vois, par contre cela peut-être aussi du au fait qu'une agumentation de la population à faire apparaitre de nouveau type de contributeur, plus orienté sur la relecture que l'ajout.
Ensuite quand on se fait corriger 50 fois la meme erreur, apres on y fait attention, donc à mon avis c'est plus l'augmentation du nombre de contributeur "correcteur" que l'augmentation du nombre d' "ajouteur" qui serait à_l'origine de ce phénomème s'il existe. Il faudrait donc a un moment supprimer les comptes des gens qui corrigent beaucoup en ajoutant peu (leur nombre étant très faible, cela n'impactera pas la courbe croissante du nombre de contributeur), et voir si la courbe "en combien de temps un utilisateur fait 2 fois moins de fautes" en fonction du temps en est impacté.
Oui et il faudrait également définir la mesure de "fautes". On pourrait considérer que les longues polémiques sont à exclure (ne compter que les 2 ou 3 premiers commentaires qui ne sont pas de l'auteur...
@Sysko: Please consider the private conversation we had during the past 24/48 hours.
Hi,
Am I right in assuming that text from sites like 2ちゃんねる http://2ch.net/ or ふたばちゃんは http://www.2chan.net/ (or 4chan for that matter) is completely in the open domain (considering the posts are anonymous and pruned really fast)?
Well, short memes like "I don't want to live on this planet anymore!" or "In need of a new meme? Why not Zoidberg?" or "I like turtles." or "Paint me like one of your French girls." are clearly okay. Nobody can seriously claim copyright on simple one-line jokes.
The same with short sentences from books etc. But you shouldn't split up longer sequences of text into single sentences and insert them all into Tatoeba.
I have no intention of using sentences that are too dependent on the context they came from of course. I would like to harvest naturalistic parts of text from languages that I can read and translate in my own language.
Thanks for your replies.
What do you mean by naturalistic parts of text? If you want real naturalistic parts of text why do you want to take them from imageboards? Or do you mean naturalistic parts of text common for imageboards? Like "Cool story bro." or "Tits or GTFO!" or "Impossibru!"?
I mean: not ripped from text books (as many sentences from the Tanaka Corpus are).
The France jurisprudence as already stated for a case where a wine producer reuse on his bottles a single sentence from a touristic guidebook.
The justice stated that as this sentence was enough "special" to be considered as something which require a creative mind, and so was protectable by author right.
As as used to say before, it's really hard to draw a clear line or give a math formula to say if a given sentence is "too generic" or "enough specific to be considered as a "creative work".
No, unfortunately copyright works in the opposite way. Something belong to you (even if you're using a nickname, a lot of author did that by the past), except if you explicitly claimed you put it under an open licence (that's the short version)
So no unfortunately they can't be considered as public domain, though most of time people on the Internet don't really need to care because the "re-use" they will do of it is unlikely to be sued by the original author.
> unlikely to be sued by the original author.
I get that. Perhaps I should rephrase my question a bit less legalistic. Would it be alright to use sentences I encounter on a forum that that deletes posts every day and is not archived, not even in the wayback machine?
Oh I see, hmm
According to "author rights" the way it is in Europe/France (where Tatoeba's server is located and where all the admin/developper are from, so in case of any legal issue, international law states that it's likely this legislation which will be in charge of stating if it's legal or not), I know that for example, if a jazzman do a totally improvised solo during an event, even if this impro is not recorded by the jazzman, it is still protected by these laws, because these laws consider that work is protected independently of the support used to "store" (or not storing) it.
So i would say if we strictly follow the law it is not. After of course it's really hard to prove that a piece of text come from there if it gets deleted/it's not recorded etc.
Posting original content onto an imageboard is de facto equivalent to releasing a work into the public domain. But of course you never know whether the original poster is the original creator.
The point whether the content gets archived, is irrelevant. But it should be okay in most cases. Think about offline jokes. "A Rabbi, a Priest and a Minister walk into a bar ..." Have you ever considered copyright concerns before retelling a funny joke you heard at a party?
And how about Aozora Bunko http://www.aozora.gr.jp/ (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aozora_Bunko)? Would it be alright to adopt sentences from the texts there?
hmmm for this, for the book for which copyright has expired, yes you can, if you do so it can be nice to add in comment from which book it has been extracted.
I don't understand Japanese so the line from wikipedia "or works that the authors wish to make freely available." is quite ambiguous.
For these works, it depends of the meaning of "free".
If it's only "free of charge", then no
If it's under a "free licence", then it's depend on which licence.
I know copyright are really complicated....
I think it's a good idea. There is ton of technical slang in 4chan and 2chan, and I think it might be very interesting to add them in tatoeba.
But there is of course the legal issue...
However, you can anyway create your own sentence using these slang.
SPAM alert
if you have received a private message from ann1010, please ignore it, to not send e-mail to adress (s)he wrote.
I'm on the way to delete these messages.