You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

NancyLebovitz comments on Open Thread, June 16-30, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Dorikka 16 June 2013 04:45AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (313)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 23 June 2013 12:50:12PM 2 points [-]

http://qz.com/96054/english-is-no-longer-the-language-of-the-web/

Plenty for LW here-- not just that English is a steadily declining fraction of online material, but the difficulties of finding out what proportion of the web is in what language, and the process by which more and more of the web is in more and more languages.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 25 June 2013 09:12:12AM *  0 points [-]

Translation is costly, but the cost of translating a popular article may be smaller than the total costs of all people who would otherwise have to read it in a foreign language.

As a model, let's say that reading an English article by a person with English as a first language, costs 1 point of energy. Reading the same article by a person with English as a second language, may cost 2 to 10 points, depending on how good that person is in English. Translating the article to another language would be perhaps 100 or 1000 points. Assuming these numbers, once you have enough readers with a native language X, it becomes globally cheaper to provide an official translation to X in addition to the original English article.

In the other direction, it may be useful to provide an ability to write articles in X, and then translate the popular ones to English. This is probably even more useful, because writing in a foreign language is more costly than reading. On the other hand, the filtering of the good articles (worth translating) must be done in the original language X, so there must already be a strong community.

On the other hand, if there are more versions of the article, the discussion will be split. But again, to some people this reduces the costs of participating. (Perhaps the best rated comments could be translated by volunteers too?)

Perhaps this is a bias when thinking about languages: One language would be cheaper than many languages. But in a situation where we already have people speaking fluently in different languages, translation may be cheaper than using one language. Especially if we can have a good filter for translating only the best things.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 25 June 2013 01:32:36PM 1 point [-]

I think the situation is grainier than you imply-- there has to be a motivation to translate, whether for love or money. "Worth translating" isn't floating out there in the aether. Instead, translation only happens if someone cares enough to make it happen.

Take the blog which has criticism of American and Israeli politicians in English and criticism of Arab politicians in Arabic. Who's going to translate the Arabic parts into English? Someone who's fascinated by Arab politics? Someone who wants to get the politicians and/or the blogger into trouble? There might be other motivations as well, but whatever it is will have to be fairly strong, especially if much of the blog is going to get translated.

I think the point of the article is that everyone adopting the same language has such a high upfront cost that it isn't going to happen any time soon, and it's interesting to look at the consequences, including the unexpected consequence that the web lowers the barriers to connection so much that minority languages are less disadvantaged than they used to be.

What advances in IA would be needed to make learning languages easier?

Comment author: tut 25 June 2013 11:58:30AM *  1 point [-]

What license is LW articles under? If they are CC you could just submit anything you want translated to Duolingo.

Edit: That only gives you five European languages, but it might be a start.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 28 June 2013 09:51:25PM 2 points [-]

Old articles (eg) are unlabeled, thus not licensed for any other use, but new articles (like this open thread) have a CC icon saying "by attribution."

Comment author: gwern 25 June 2013 11:30:25PM 0 points [-]

AFAIK, LW articles are considered copyright of the original author; it's the LW wiki which is supposed to be CC.