Search results
Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing. (This is partly because translation templates automatically carry links to machine translations, so readers can easily access machine translations anyway.)
Unless you also speak the language well enough to edit the result into accuracy, then absolutely not: Wikipedia's consensus is that an unedited machine translation [...] is worse than nothing.
This page appears to have started as a poor-quality machine translation of the Japanese Wikipedia page ja:神道の歴史. The article structure is largely intact so far as I've checked, so it's still pretty easy to align sentence-by-sentence.
also warns when the text contains too much machine translation (as shown at 100% in Figure 5 above) as it is Wikipedia consensus that an unedited machine translation is worse than having no article at all. Unedited machine translations are likely to be deleted on publishing. The tool does not have access to the visual
May 8, 2019 · The English Wikipedia is the largest edition by far, with 5.5 million articles, but other editions are far smaller — and Google’s automated translate tool isn’t helping to bridge the gap.
Mar 27, 2024 · Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing. (see for example here). The translation templates have links to machine translations built in automatically, so all readers should be able to access machine translations easily.
People also ask
Is an unedited machine translation worse than nothing?
Is machine translation a bad thing?
Why is machine translation a problem for Wikipedia editors?
Will machine translation be a viable way to make Wikipedia articles?
Sep 23, 2019 · The tool now provides users with an initial machine translation for them to improve prior to publishing, and incorporates safeguards which help ensure that all untouched machine translations are reviewed.
