Alle Sprachen    |   EN   SV   IS   RU   RO   IT   FR   PT   HU   NL   SK   LA   FI   ES   BG   HR   NO   CS   DA   TR   PL   EO   SR   EL   |   SK   FR   HU   PL   NL   SQ   RU   ES   NO   SV   IS   IT   FI   CS   DA   PT   HR   BG   RO   |   more ...

Deutsch-Englisch-Wörterbuch

Online-Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch: Begriff hier eingeben!
  äöüß...
  Optionen | Tipps | FAQ | Abkürzungen | Desktop

LoginRegistrieren
Home|About/Extras|Vokabeltrainer|Fachgebiete|Benutzer|Forum|Mitmachen!
Übersetzungsforum Deutsch-Englisch
 to meet anticipations »
« top- and bottom-line growth    

English-German Translation Forum

« zurück | Antworten aus- oder einblenden | Diskussion beobachten
Frage:
Closed Sources not permissable in contributions A  
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-25, 18:51  like dislike  Spam?  
With regard to the Latin word castrum, which certain parties insist on being an English word and involves a reopened contribution, there is a vital aspect about open translation that must be noted here for the sake of all dict.cc contributions.
http://contribute.dict.cc/?action=edit&id=758735
One of the claimants for castrum bases her source as: "The word "castrum" is duly entered in the OED, to which my university has a subscription. Having looked it up there four years ago” as well as an on-line subscription service to Merriam-webster. No reference to Oxford dictionary pages numbers are cited nor can we have access to this site, where the disputed word would undoubtedly be explained as Latin.
Chat:     
Closed Sources not permissable in contributions B  #648564
von Artists (US), 2012-03-25, 18:52  like dislike  Spam?  
Furthermore, the merriam-webster site requires a free trial, which we do not subscribe to because of information-gathering and government spy operations at such sites. Additionally, merriam webster undoubtedly also references this as a Latin term.
References to arcane or closed sources unavailable for checking by others, and references to subscription sites are never valid sources. They are not open sources that can be freely checked and smack of dictatorial and elitist claims, most often false which is the reason they are bandied about as private "me-only" data. Of course, Germany has a history of restrictions against free and open scholarship. Maybe this has crept into dict.cc.  If so, we will no longer participate.
Chat:     
Closed Sources not permissable in contributions C  #648566
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-25, 19:17  like dislike  Spam?  
We also take great exception to the original references of this same contribution, where an EN Wiki citation involves a word having nothing to do with the translation (in this case, the Latin word castellum) and DE Wiki that is equally unsupportive of the English-German translation claim.
It is very sad to us that certain contributors would deliberately insert false and misleading citations, because they cause us to waste our time and leave us with a very bad opinion of current lazy and deceptive research abilities.
In other words, if a false citation is designed to appear authoritative to another voter (who is too lazy to cross-check) or involves a closed source another voter cannot judge, then these methods are prohibited for the sake of genuine translation utility for this dictionary.
Chat:     
How anyone can claim that the Oxford English Dictionary is not a valid source for checking entries is beyond me.  #648567
von Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2012-03-25, 19:20  like dislike  Spam?  
Anyone with access to this essential resource for the English language is, I believe, OBLIGATED to use that access in support of creating the best possible dictionary here. That's why I enjoy sharing my access to this dictionary, which I have not as a result of any elitism, but as a result of my association with a university. Anyone who studies or works at any American university has free access to the OED through their library databases, and many people do also own or pay for this access. Students, be sure to use your access to such resources as the OED, they are free to you by virtue of your association with an institution of higher learning. I always recommend that students avail themselves of every resource to which they have access - that is the benefit of an open, democratic society - use it, and use it well! Artists: If you like, I would be more than happy to send you a scan from my home copy of Webster's unabridged. I would be glad to share that with you!
Chat:     
Im Lateinischen ist aber castra >das Lager.    castrum > die Festung, die Burg, das Kastell  #648569
von Bella-Brera (AT), 2012-03-25, 19:23  like dislike  Spam?  
Chat:     
Reply to elitist argumentation   #648571
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-25, 19:41  like dislike  Spam?  
Apparently you have not read our statements. We strongly believe that private sources of information not available conveniently and openly to every scholar are not permissible as references on dict.cc.  
We are not part of the elite with access to tax-subsidized university references, although we are heavily taxed to benefit the select few that are. I still consider myself a scholar and author even though I am not associated with an institution of higher learning that does not make its sources open to the community.
A system withholding information from the general populace is not truly democratic, but elitist (or authoritarian), and we are insulted to have to rely on your home copy of a scan like crumbs to a dog. Because our own Webster’s dictionary has no reference to this translation except as a Latin word, we are prone to suspect any easily-forged or wrongfully truncated scan anyway. What kind of scholarly references are they teaching at college these days? They are not permissible in this dictionary unless Paul expressly authorizes closed material not capable of being freely cross-checked.
Chat:     
Im Lateinischen ist aber castra >das Lager.    castrum > die Festung, die Burg, das Kastell   #648572
von Artists (US), 2012-03-25, 19:35  like dislike  Spam?  
Bella-Brera, thank you for confirming the translation agreed upon by several contributors interested in reliable and confirmable open source data.
Chat:     
Is it then not a GOOD thing to make information contained in such things as the OED available to the public by using and posting it here in dict.cc?  #648574
von Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2012-03-25, 19:51  like dislike  Spam?  
It seems t me that would be a good thing, given your arguments. I can tell you this, if it were necessary strictly to refer to freely available online available information in working on the Albanian dictionaries here, there would be no point in creating that or many of the other dictionaries Paul is trying to make available. The point of dict.cc is precisely what you seek: making otherwise inaccessible information available to the broader public. Without consulting my private collection of Albanian dictionaries, I could never make the entries I do on that dictionary, and dict.cc would not constitute an improvement to what is available online already. If we can't expand on what is already out there and available to the online public, it seems to me there is not a whole lot of reason for this dictionary. If I can find it somewhere else, why would I need to look here? Sharing the information to which I have access because of my research skills and investment in information is a wonderful way to contribute to dict.cc and precisely what motivates me to contribute here, and again, I make no apologies for that!
Chat:     
Basics  #648575
von Jim46 (US), 2012-03-25, 19:55  like dislike  Spam?  
Why is it necessary or desirable to provide "castrum" to English learners?
I can't imagine one having the slightest need or interest.
Chat:     
Da kommt ja alles durcheinander!  #648576
von ddr (AT), 2012-03-25, 20:00  like dislike  Spam?  
1.OED ist keine Geheimquelle, es hat nur nicht jeder das Geld, sich den Zugang zu ermöglichen. Da sollten wir doch glücklich sein, dass Kis Zugang hat und die Informationen an uns weitergibt.
2.. Wie das bei MW mit government spy operations ist, weiß ich nicht, aber free trials sind an sich riskant, finde ich. Wieder ein Glück, dass Kis den Zugang hat.
3. Politisch kann man das natürlich anders sehen, ich hatte auch keine Lust mir alle 2 Jahre einen neuen Duden zu kaufen und fand, dass diese Informationen öffentlich und für alle zugänglich sein sollten - was sie ja inzwischen sind. Aber durch den Ausschluss von Worten in dict. wird man den Verlag von OED kaum bewegen, sich in eine wohltätige Stiftung zu verwandeln, und irgendwoher müssen sie ja ihr Geld kriegen und ihre Mitarbeiter auch.
3. Ob castrum ein englisches Wort ist und Castrum ein deutsches, finde zumindest ich ziemlich uninteressant. Wir haben x lateinische Worte. Wo liegt denn die Grenze? Wichtig ist doch nur, ob das Wort in der englsichen bzw. deutschen Literatur gebraucht wird.
4. Möglich, dass der ursprüngliche Eintrag nicht ganz richtig war, wie Bella meint. Der Wiki-Eintrag ist etwas verwirrend. Das kann man ja jetzt reparieren.
Chat:     
Castrum/castra  #648586
von AngloAndy (CA), 2012-03-25, 22:06  like dislike  Spam?  
--As to whether one should say 'castrum' or 'castra', one has to turn to the Latin, as the usual English or German pluralisation rules do not seem to apply here.

--Those in the know seem to suggest that the plural of castrum is castra (only three out of many examples here):
http://books.google.ca/books?id=M1JIPAN-eJ4C&pg=PA81&dq=plu...
http://books.google.ca/books?id=gHXqB_ITcDoC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA...
http://latindiscussion.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7083
Chat:     
Response to Basics  #648587
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-25, 22:10  like dislike  Spam?  
Like Jim46, we cannot imagine an English learner having the slightest need or interest in learning a Latin word like castrum either. However, if the need arises one can always pay money to subscribe to restricted dictionary accounts or hope that a college professor provides access to collegiate resources denied ordinary citizens not in attendance. Many closed aspects of society can be gained if one is accepted into the inner circles of academia or possesses excess funds, but such a system does not reflect scholarly openness nor democratic procedures.

Or else we could consult the free dict.cc Latin dictionary, where this word belongs with both English and German translations.
Chat:     
CASTRVM / CASTRA in Latin  #648588
von Proteus-, 2012-03-25, 22:12  like dislike  Spam?  194.166.2...
Chat:     
Latin words  #648589
von AngloAndy (CA), Last modified: 2012-03-25, 22:33  like dislike  Spam?  
--The only reason why this specific Latin word should be entered in an English, or German or bilingual English-German, dictionary is that it is used sometimes, in very specific contexts, by certain speakers of those languages. With 'castrum', those who use it seem to do so to emphasise the connexion to Ancient Rome through the use of its language.

It can thus be useful for dictionary users to know that the 'other side' also use the undefiled Latin word.
Chat:     
RE Artists' remark: "we are insulted to have to rely on your home copy of a scan like crumbs to a dog"  #648590
von Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2012-03-25, 22:14  like dislike  Spam?  
I'm sorry you take my offer to assist you with information only I seem (curiously) to have access to as insulting. My offer was made (whether you wish to believe it or not) in a true spirit of generosity. I believe in the ideal of a true community of scholars and learners and try to the best of my limited ability to realize that here. If you are insulted, it isn't because that was my intent - I apologize if I managed to create that impression in spite of my good intentions. I only mean to share information that is useful to others - that is the spirit of my involvement in dict.cc, to contribute to the democratization of information. I find that a most worthy goal and support it actively as my time and resources allow.
Chat:     
Etymology  #648591
von Proteus-, 2012-03-25, 22:16  like dislike  Spam?  194.166.2...
Chat:     
Of sources and entries & the OED and Paul.  #648592
von AngloAndy (CA), 2012-03-25, 22:20  like dislike  Spam?  
--I would tend to think that with all the resources available freely on the Internet, that it would be nearly always possible to provide a link to a source that is easily verifiable online.

--Maybe Paul could consider working out an arrangement with the OED that would provide dict.cc contributors to online access to the OED? The use of the OED could only benefit dict.cc and enhance its credibility.
Chat:     
Agree with K - sometimes I have to consult my copies of Bahlow or Cottle for answering queries about German or English proper names  #648593
von Proteus-, 2012-03-25, 22:22  like dislike  Spam?  194.166.2...
Taking the trouble to look up the stuff in another room is hardly arrogant or insulting to people asking questions.
Chat:     
I don't think an English-German dictionary is mainly for English learners.  #648597
von ddr (AT), Last modified: 2012-03-25, 22:51  like dislike  Spam?  
Mainly it's for readers and writers and translators..
The readers and writers might not know the target language very well, but they are trying to read or write something. And if they read castrum or Castrum, they shouldn't have to look it up in Wikipedia or google to find out what term is used it the other language, how it's spelled and what gender it has.
Chat:     
We agree with AngloAndy  #648598
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-25, 23:02  like dislike  Spam?  
Our basic complaint involves openness of sources being utilized as backup or reasons for translation in contributions. Therefore, we agree with AngloAndy that an arrangement with the OED, to provide dict.cc contributors online access to the OED, would be most valuable and make this effectively an open source.

We also acknowledge the high academic credentials and good intentions of Kiskunfelegyhaza, and we are not questioning her willingness to share information. We are only dismayed that OED is not freely available to us as well, and desire this reputable and authoritative source be a consulting instrument for everyone. Until that time, however, its absence prevents the full scholarly research required in certain difficult or obscure translation choices (this being one such case at point).
Chat:     
If anyone is an ordinary citizen, it's me.  #648599
von Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2012-03-25, 23:04  like dislike  Spam?  
I'm daily reminded of that as I contemplate the deferred maintenance affecting my home, the prohibitive costs getting my children a college education will entail, and the difficulty of coming up with enough money to feed them at the end of every month before my paycheck arrives (I am a single mother). I teach German for Reading Knowledge and can think of any number of history students who read about Roman history and would find it useful to see "castrum" entered on this or any English and/or German dictionary. Artists, these accusations of elitism and dictatorship are kind of disturbing. I try not to take them personally, but it's a challenge. Sharing my linguistic knowledge with others is so important to me that I operate, without remuneration, an after-school language program for about 70 local children. Commodifying knowledge is an unfortunate byproduct of the capitalist economic system that has gripped the globe. By sharing our collective knowledge on a volunteer basis here on dict.cc and with those in our communities, we are all playing a small part in combating the baneful effects of applying a price tag to knowledge, even if it's somewhat obscure knowledge as represented by the word "castrum."
Chat:     
Reply to elitist argumentation Part II  #648602
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 01:26  like dislike  Spam?  
Kiskunfelegyhaza, again this thread is about openness of sources. Sources that are restricted to favored segments of society (such as academia) and unavailable to others are, by definition, elite sources. Such limitation of source material is the unfortunate basis of dictatorships and authoritarian systems.

We do not understand why you fail to understand that condescending to share your privileged material with us is actually charity, and we are the ones insulted by it. We do not ask for charity from anyone, but only the chance to freely review and see this kind of material for ourselves.
Chat:     
Kiskunfelegyhaza  #648604
von WingDing (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 00:49  like dislike  Spam?  
Anyone with access to this essential resource for the English language is, I believe, OBLIGATED to use that access in support of creating the best possible dictionary here.

I completely agree with you. If contributors can't live with that or constantly suspect other contributors are not acting in good faith (maybe that's true), then perhaps it's best if they end their frustration and stop participating. It's probably not worth the aggravation they will frequently experience. Just my two cents.
Chat:     
WingDing  #648606
von Jim46 (US), 2012-03-26, 00:58  like dislike  Spam?  
And how does one verify that this person, with best of intentions, hasn't made a mistake?
Chat:     
Jim46  #648607
von WingDing (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 01:23  like dislike  Spam?  
It's impossible to have a perfect system. People will inevitably disagree and people will make mistakes. So I think you do the best you can with the group of people you have and try to work together to use the best resources your group can collectively access. Does that require a certain degree of trust? Yeah, it does. If you have a bad group, then your project fails. There will be times that your opinion on a matter will not be accepted. Mistakes will be made. So it goes. If the nature of your group or its imperfections is a constant source of irritation for you, then it's in your best interest in terms of your well-being to leave. Simple as that.
Chat:     
WingDing  #648609
von AngloAndy (CA), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 01:33  like dislike  Spam?  
There's no need for  anyone to leave dict.cc over this.

However, it should be a recognised principle that -- in general -- a verifiable online link should be provided.

No one is suggesting that any contributor is acting in bad faith, certainly not in the case of the entry referred to above.

However, it has been shown that copying information from a book not available online and to those who review an entry could lead to an erroneous entry as the original contributor can make a mistake when copying.

Or, are you suggesting that reviewers be eliminated as those contributing entries should always be blindly trusted? To err is human, indeed. Providing an online link reduces the possibilities of human error. We are all trying to work together. Even if we sometimes disagree with one another.
Chat:     
WingDing  #648610
von Jim46 (US), 2012-03-26, 01:24  like dislike  Spam?  
I'm not at all irritated.  But twice now, you have suggested that people participating in this
thread, who apparently hold an opinion opposite of yours, and are both your senior here, should
leave.  Isn't dissent a good thing?  Isn't it a form of working together?
Chat:     
jim46  #648611
von WingDing (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 01:42  like dislike  Spam?  
I'm responding to this:

Of course, Germany has a history of restrictions against free and open scholarship. Maybe this has crept into dict.cc.  If so, we will no longer participate.

If people want to leave, then leave. If they have enough irritation over an issue to leave, then they should leave. Don't threaten to leave as an argument for some position on an issue. I'd rather someone just leave than debase the group debate process.
Chat:     
Reply to elitist argumentation Part III  #648612
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 02:18  like dislike  Spam?  
The thread is about openness of sources.

WingDing has the typical elitist solution to keep sources closed. It is the same argument used by tyrants throughout history. There is no need to be worried about information only viewable by a select few, which does not include you, because you should trust us. If you do not agree, it is best to leave.

Translated, Either my way or the highway. Translated by Governments, Obey or face eradication.

Our positon has been and will continue to be that the contribution process must include verifiable sources available to everyone. If this is not the case, we would rather remain where open source debate participants are allowed equal access and we are against participating in a site introducing restrictive limitations, false and misleading citations, and no references to page numbers or volumes or any other standard of accountability.
Chat:     
More and more, 'castrum' appears to be a MacGuffin.   #648616
von MichaelK (US), 2012-03-26, 02:17  like dislike  Spam?  
Which is unfortunate, since one could just discuss one's displeasure with (in alphabetical order) academia, authoritarian government, colleges of today, dictatorships, elitists, favored segments of society, tax-subsidized universities, and tyrants without involving a dict.cc contribution.
Chat:     
angloandy  #648618
von WingDing (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 02:20  like dislike  Spam?  
Or, are you suggesting that reviewers be eliminated as those contributing entries should always be blindly trusted? To err is human, indeed. Providing an online link reduces the possibilities of human error. We are all trying to work together. Even if we sometimes disagree with one another.

I think verifiable links are great and should carry a lot of weight. I also think that people can add information for consideration that is not easily accessible to everyone in the group. That doesn't mean the information is useless or that others in the group cannot check into it. The more good information people can provide to a question, the better the final answer will be. To straitjacket people into only contributing information that is publicly accessible has a chilling effect: it discourages people from participating in contributing their knowledge and it restricts the amount of information for consideration to the group. It doesn't allow the wisdom of the group to reach its full potential.

Wikipedia(EN): Wisdom_of_the_crowd
Chat:     
McGuffin/MacGuffin and the Crowd  #648619
von AngloAndy (CA), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 02:31  like dislike  Spam?  
Sorry to be sidetracking for a minute; but shouldn't the dict.cc entry for McGuffin/MacGuffin be re-opened and improved? See: http://contribute.dict.cc/?action=show-history&id=842427

My question is based on this: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/McGuffin?region=us&q=M...

As there are two spelling variants, should that not be two separate entries?
What of a 'chiefly British' tag?
And an improved German translation as the existing one is only partial and thus inaccurate.
Chat:     
Reaction to MichaelK input  #648620
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 02:48  like dislike  Spam?  
http://contribute.dict.cc/?action=edit&id=758735
We remind everyone that the topic of this thread is the translation involved in the above contribution. MichealK, unfortunately this thread was necessitated because a certain contributor invoked her privileged access to a source in her academic position, which is subsidized by our taxation, not available to other members of society without credentials unless payment is received. The insistence that her source be accepted as unchallenged (without any page number, volume, etc.) because she saw it 4 years ago is the usual way that elitists, as well as dictators and authoritarian governments, operate. So this does involve a dict.cc contribution, and is at the heart of the discussion here. We might also add that the German original input to this translation was based on deliberately false citations to another word and misleading entries that went nowhere.Your belittlement and twisting of our appeals to reason are typical of the elitist disdain for fair and open scholarship being involved in contribution processes during translation.
Chat:     
Wisdom of the Crowd  #648621
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 02:54  like dislike  Spam?  
WingDing would have us abide by rules of contribution in the translation process akin to the collective mania of a circus mob or crowd at a Roman coliseum. I suppose the collective crowd support of Hitler and his Brown Shirts is enough to suffice for judgment in the political arena. McCarthyism use of mob sentimentality to blacklist disliked public figures is another classic instance of the wisdom of the crowd (and yes, he routinely invoked special, secret or classified information that he and his staff alone were privy to)..

During translation, however, we would rather rely on the studied expertise of scholars whenever their works are available for open analysis and comparison. Otherwise, and especially without proper citation or references, it is just another mob choice or gambit based on trust of material hidden from general public view unless the proper price is paid, or academic access is forthcoming.
Chat:     
WingDing: Let's chill out  #648622
von AngloAndy (CA), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 02:50  like dislike  Spam?  
Why should a process that is as open as possible be chilling? I would think that openness and transparency would have quite the opposite effect.

It being suggested that I should take on faith what others say is, however, chilling and stifles the free and open nature of dict.cc.

It may be, of course, that one has access to some information that is not available to everyone online: one should then feel free to bring that up for the consideration of other contributors: it is done regularly. However, if you review entries at all, you will see that quite a number of entries are not buttressed by proper sources and that one is expected to just go along with whatever is being proposed. That is not good for the credibility of dict.cc and the accuracy of its entries . I'm sure you can recognise that.

All information, whether it  be verifiable online or not, can be assessed by entry reviewers in their infinite wisdom. How is that chilling?
Chat:     
WingDing writes: "... it discourages people from participating in contributing their knowledge"  #648623
von Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2012-03-26, 02:48  like dislike  Spam?  
Amen to that. Artists have already accused me of wanting to falsify information: "we are prone to suspect any easily-forged or wrongfully truncated scan anyway ..." Artists, you are dreaming a nice dream here, but intellectual property rights are real and aren't going away any time soon. It's a wonder as many people participate here on a volunteer basis as they do at this time. And then, when they ARE acting in good faith, their motives are questioned, as though anyone had any reason here to deliberately contribute to undermining the project which is dict.cc. It's lovely to have access to free dictionaries, but when publishers and experts invest the effort it takes to create and update reliable dictionaries, they expect (rightly) to get some monetary benefit from their work. It's clear to me that we are better off sharing our access to the resources we are able to use collectively, than we are restricting ourselves exclusively to what others have made available on the Internet. Those resources aren't really free either, at least I certainly have to pay for access to the Internet and must take in many an unwanted advertisement for the privilege of accessing a good deal of information out there. If you don't trust me, that's fine, but don't speak out of two sides of your mouth and claim that you "acknowledge my good intentions." Why do sources have to be free in order to be "open"? No one here is preventing anyone from purchasing dictionaries or subscribing to them. Certain tools of the trade really need to be purchased in order to further certain ends. Several years ago, I bought my own copy of the Duden Universalwörterbuch in order to invest in the contributions I could make here on dict.cc. Having done that, I'd prefer not to be chastised for it, because the dictionary does not constitute an "open" source by your definition. As ddr wrote, the OED is not "hidden." Anyone can subscribe to it if they find the investment worth making. If you don't want to make it, that's fine, but don't tell those of us who have these great resources at our disposal to avoid them - that doesn't help dict.cc. It's very easy for anyone to make screenshots of references they subscribe to. Call it charity, call it what you want, but I for one wouldn't have a problem with making screen shots of that kind of thing available to anyone who requests it if there is no better resource. If we can't trust one another, it's really too bad for dict.cc. Because working in the kind of atmosphere where my good faith is questioned truly does discourage my participation. It's a reason why I make so few entries and cast so few votes on the German-English dictionary, which is a shame, considering my expertise.
Chat:     
Hitler and his Brown Shirts? McCarthyism?? All because of the OED???  #648624
von Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2012-03-26, 02:57  like dislike  Spam?  
OK, now I think I can safely say I've seen it all. Try a public library, Artists - there's your FREE source. All paid for by YOUR taxes. Check my reference there. Webster's unabridged, the OED, maybe even Duden. Then you'll see just how much I'm hiding and my plot to control the world will be revealed - Muhahahaha!!!
Chat:     
Kis re Tools of the trade and being appreciated and Paul  #648625
von AngloAndy (CA), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 03:05  like dislike  Spam?  
1)  You say that 'Certain tools of the trade really need to be purchased in order to further certain ends.'

That brings me back to suggesting that Paul could perhaps look into some sort of partnership with the OED for dict.cc contributors. There seems to have been precedents for partnerships in dict.cc history.

2)  I can also relate to what you are saying about pulling back when the atmosphere gets to be a bit too heated round here. If anyone of us (your good self included) does not participate for any reason, dict.cc is the poorer for it.

I feel that English speakers are generally under-appreciated and, quite often, made to feel redundant. Those are my feelings stemming from my own experience.
Chat:     
 Kiskunfelegyhaza, we have not accused you  #648626
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 03:07  like dislike  Spam?  
Kiskunfelegyhaza, we have not accused you of any wrongful conduct or wanting to falsify information. We are speaking in terms of open sources and our reluctance, shared by general society, to rely on closed-source material not independently verifiable, especially when it involves copies.
Chat:     
Well, Artists, call me an elitist then. :-)  #648628
von MichaelK (US), 2012-03-26, 03:08  like dislike  Spam?  
Sometimes I contribute stuff from my book shelf about 4 feet to the right of me and people here seem to appreciate it. Those books weren't exactly free and the copying-out is tedious work for me. I can't offer a page scan for confirmation, no scanner in the house. Just curious: who's this "we" you always speak of?
Chat:     
Kiskunfelegyhaza  #648629
von WingDing (US), 2012-03-26, 03:11  like dislike  Spam?  
I hear that. I can't understand why anybody would want to even attempt to contribute to the dictionary and risk being ostracized for being a Brown Shirt or a tyrant or a bipolar Mensa member for, God forbid, using the OED. This thread has been a good chuckle.
Chat:     
Hitler and his Brown Shirts? McCarthyism?? All because of the OED??? Reply    #648631
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 03:23  like dislike  Spam?  
Kiskunfelegyhaza, your insincere reference to a public library to check your reference is not possible. Not once in the contribution process did you ever provide a volume or page number citation to either "Webster's unabridged, the OED, or maybe even Duden."

"Then you'll see just how much I'm hiding and my plot to control the world will be revealed - Muhahahaha!!! "
Thanks for the unwarranted title of your rebuke and your intolerable sarcastic torrent of abusive insults.

Kis, you are masking any OED citations that you claim seeing 4 years ago, because they are nowhere to check yet. We are not going to the public library and laboriously read the entirety of Webstes unabridged and OED to appease your vanity or disdain for those of us outside academic circles.

In the colleges I attended, we were taught to make proper citations. I suppose that is too much trouble now.
Chat:     
Wingding, a gentle reminder  #648634
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 03:24  like dislike  Spam?  
"I hear that. I can't understand why anybody would want to even attempt to contribute to the dictionary and risk being ostracized for being a Brown Shirt or a tyrant or a bipolar Mensa member for, God forbid, using the OED."

Wingding, you were the one that proposed using "Wisdom of the Crowd" techniques practised by the Brown Shirts and Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Your bipolar Mensa membership is your own invention. Your invoking of God's name is your own problem.

Your ridicule of us for objecting to the OED is unreasonable because we did not object to this source. We objected to the inability to access it for cross-checking to judge the accuracy of its content as stated by another contributor who claims it states a Latin word is English. Now she insists it can be found somewhere in a public library but sitll refuses citation to volume or page number.
Chat:     
artists  #648635
von WingDing (US), 2012-03-26, 03:26  like dislike  Spam?  
Chat:     
Well, Artists, call me an elitist then. :-)  Reply  #648636
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 03:32  like dislike  Spam?  
MichaelK, when you provide references from your private library shelves, do you also refuse to cite volume and page numbers? :)
Chat:     
Wingding's deplorable response  #648637
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 03:37  like dislike  Spam?  
Wingding has rudely responded to our requests for proper citation by sending us to a YouTube video of Star Trek.

That sums up the strengths of the counterarguments to our pleas for open sources and proper citations, folks.

By the way, WingDing has not contributed a single translation nor a single vote on one.  Why is he in this discussion?
Chat:     
Artists: I never provide them and no one has ever asked for them. Should someone ask for them, I'd provide them.  #648642
von MichaelK (US), 2012-03-26, 03:51  like dislike  Spam?  
Permit me again: who's "we" and "us"? Your missives aren't generated by a committee of grumpy old men, are they?
Chat:     
"We and Us" are not a committee  #648646
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 04:20  like dislike  Spam?  
MichaelK, references to "we" and "us" are to both Shelby and Kathy, who have one account as a pair on dict.cc as shown in our homepage. We both record, vote and comment, depending on who is on the computer. Of course, the audios are distinguishable. That is why our title is the plural Artists, and not singular Artist. We hope this clarifies our use of these terms. Thank you for asking, and we apologize for any confusion in this regard.
Chat:     
WingDing and StarTrek coded message  #648650
von AngloAndy (CA), 2012-03-26, 04:15  like dislike  Spam?  
It may be the Celt in me, but I do not understand your YouTube link.

Is that some sort of coded message to be understood only by the cognoscenti?

By the sounds of it, it could be offensive.

Care to explain?
Chat:     
Thanks for the explanation. Apparently, you are of one mind.   #648651
von MichaelK (US), 2012-03-26, 04:17  like dislike  Spam?  
My wife would skin me alive if I spoke for her on matters like these. :-) Got to hit the sack, lights out at 2230 hrs. in this house.
Chat:     
angloandy  #648654
von WingDing (US), 2012-03-26, 04:24  like dislike  Spam?  
Nah, just chillin' out. It's all good. I'm done.
Chat:     
The Borg  #648655
von Jim46 (US), 2012-03-26, 04:27  like dislike  Spam?  
Perhaps we should add a few Borg words to dict.  :-)
Chat:     
Artists, get serious. Every dictionary known to man is organized alphabetically.  #648658
von Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2012-03-26, 05:25  like dislike  Spam?  
Just go to the page where you would find "castrum." It's under the letter C. That comes after B and before D. Online dictionaries don't have volume and page numbers anyhow. The OED is an online database. And my suggestion that you visit a public library is serious. The free open resources you demand can be found there. It should appease your fears of a government conspiracy because of the OED. And I can see why WingDing does not find it interesting to contribute votes and entries here. My effort to save a single meager entry from deletion has resulted in the uncovering of an apparent government plot to undermine free access to information on a global scale.
Chat:     
So there we are. Globally waning US hegemony engenders delusions of US plotting supremacy.   #648674
von Proteus-, 2012-03-26, 11:17  like dislike  Spam?  188.23.117....
Chat:     
"figura zeigt", wie sich etwas aufbauschen lässt!  #648676
von Bella-Brera (AT), 2012-03-26, 11:27  like dislike  Spam?  
Chat:     
Giving source information is not restricted.  #648688
von Paul (AT), 2012-03-26, 14:27  like dislike  Spam?  
I can't restrict comments and sources given in the system. If someone uses sources that are restricted or otherwise inaccessible to you, please just treat it as "no sources given". If you can't verify an entry due to lack of sources, you can always just skip it and proceed to the next entry. Nobody can verify each and every entry, at least not in a reasonable amount of time.

Regarding a possible partnership with OED: All partnerships with dict.cc so far are without money changing hands. I don't pay anyone for any service, and I don't get paid for anything. The advertising agencies keep a certain percentage of the ad revenue generated by dict.cc, that's the money I need to keep dict.cc running and that's all in terms of cash flow. And I don't have long-term contracts with any one of them. If I want to quit using Google as an ad provider, I can do so instantly. That's just to explain how I handle partnerships.

Considering OED's annual fee for only one individual ($295, http://www.oed.com/public/howtosub/how-to-subscribe/) they would surely charge thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars for such a partnership. And even if I would be willing and able to pay this amount, this would raise a lot of other questions.
For one: Is there a user friendly way to access OED from dict.cc? dict.cc is not a building or company network with one public IP address that can just be allowed at their servers. Every user has his own IP, so there would be an additional detection/login procedure necessary.
And the other question is: If I pay for OED, what about all of the other restricted online sources? Considering the 26 different languages provided by dict.cc, there will surely be dozens of other such sources. Being consistent would mean paying for all of the major ones, and I guess everyone will understand that this is not possible.
Chat:     
Thank you, Paul  #648757
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-26, 22:44  like dislike  Spam?  
Once again, Paul, you have cut to the heart of the matter in the wisest and most favorable manner.

You generously provide dict.cc as an open resource to learn other languages, and the free access and openness of this site benefits everyone in the global population who avails himself or herself of this incomparable opportunity, while spreading goodwill and building human understanding.

If only other intellectual reservoirs of knowledge would share your humanitarian principles, this world would be a much more cooperative and friendly environment.
Chat:     
Dieser Kasus lässt mir keine Ruhe.  #648809
von ddr (AT), 2012-03-27, 13:23  like dislike  Spam?  
Paul hat es sicher nicht notwendig, immer wieder gelobt zu werden. Er hatte eine gute Idee und macht es prima, und dict.cc ist eine zwar oft fehlerhafte, aber trotzdem extrem nützliche Informationsquelle geworden. Es funktioniert aber nur, weil es so viele Leute gibt, die es befriedigend finden, ihr Wissen weiterzugeben. Keiner von uns muss von dict.cc leben, sonst wäre wir schon alle verhungert. Jeder von uns hat ein Einkommen. Und die Leute, die full-time für traditionelle Wörterbücher oder Lexika oder was immer arbeiten, brauchen auch eines. Desgleichen Wissenschaftler, Musiker, Autoren etc. An diesem 'everything for free' - Wahn leiden Verlage (und ganz besoners die Wissenschafts-Verlage) und ihre Autoren, Symphonie-Orchester, Photographen, Graphiker, kurz jeder, der etwas produziert und geistiges Eigentum besitzt. Wenn ausgerechnet Information kostenlos sein soll (während wir bereit sind, für die Hardware noch und noch Geld hinzulegen), sollte man zumindest Vorschläge machen, wie Menschen und Institutionen, die bisher mit der Produktion und Verbreitung von Wissen und künstlerischen Leistungen ihren Lebensunterhalt verdient haben, in dieser 'schönen neuen Welt' überleben sollen.
Chat:     
:-)  :-)  :-)      :-) :-) :-)     :-) :-) :)  #648811
von Wenz (DE), 2012-03-27, 13:36  like dislike  Spam?  
Chat:     
von Paul (AT), 2012-03-27, 17:22  like dislike  Spam?  
 #648842
4;ddr: Ich werde oft gelobt, aber auch sehr oft kritisiert. Das hält sich ungefähr die Waage. ;-)
Aber ich stimme mit Dir überein, dass mit der Erstellung und Pflege von Wissensquellen sehr viel Arbeit - von vielen Leuten - verbunden ist. Ich denke aber auch, dass es eine gute Sache ist, wenn man Leuten frei verfügbare Wissensquellen zur Verfügung stellt. Langfristig kann nur ein möglichst einfacher Zugang zur Bildung die Ungleichheiten auf der Welt mildern (siehe auch Wikipedia oder "one laptop per child").
Chat:     
ddr u.a.  #648847
von parker11 (DE), 2012-03-27, 18:12  like dislike  Spam?  
Hört Euch mal den Beitrag des deutschen Musikers und Schriftstellers Sven Regener zum Thema "everything-for free" an. Ungefähr in der Mitte des SPIEGEL-Artikels unter das kleine Bild von Regener klicken (Radio-Mitschnitt Bayer. Rundfunk). Der bringt es ziemlich genau auf den Punkt.
http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,823144,00.html
Chat:     
Danke.  #648850
von ddr (AT), 2012-03-27, 18:59  like dislike  Spam?  
Chat:     
Schwierige Frage.  #648859
von Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2012-03-27, 20:05  like dislike  Spam?  
Was Regener da sagt, ist wirklich interessant. Es geht alles auf die Kommodifizierung zurück. Wir alle wollen (natürlich) das Geld erhalten, was wir brauchen, um überhaupt zu überleben, und dafür müssen wir arbeiten. Trotzdem wollen wir am liebsten nichts von diesem Geld ausgeben, wenn es darauf ankommt, von der Arbeit zu profitieren, die andere leisten, damit sie auch Geld verdienen. Ich finde (trotz meiner angeblichen Eitelkeit!) Pauls Ideal echt fabelhaft, weshalb ich auch hier etwas beitrage. Aber ich gebe auch gern (oder zumindest freiwillig) Geld aus für Dinge, die mir wichtig sind (einschließlich Wörterbücher). Wo genau die goldene Mitte liegt, weiß ich nicht, aber es ist Tatsache, dass das Herstellen von intellektuellen Produkten sich auf einen immer engeren Kreis von Produzenten reduziert, weil die großen Konzerne zu viel Macht haben und die kleineren nicht (mehr) konkurrenzfähig sind. Wie wir diesem Prozess widerstehen können, darauf antwortet Regener nicht, aber es ist wohl eine gute Idee, das mit unserem Geld zu unterstützen, was uns wichtig ist, und nicht allzu geizig zu sein, wobei wir natürlich dasjenige (wie z. B. unser Wissen hier) mit anderen teilen, was wirklich hilfreich ist beim Versuch, die krassen Ungleichheiten, die in unserer vom Kapitalismus beherrschten Welt bestehen, etwas weniger krass zu machen.
Chat:     
False Lead to Public Library  #648867
von Artists (US), Last modified: 2012-03-28, 17:13  like dislike  Spam?  
Our local library informed us that budget cuts forced them to cancel the subscription to OED.
Chat:     
Well now there is an interesting example of projection.  #648870
von Kiskunfelegyhaza (US), 2012-03-27, 21:46  like dislike  Spam?  
Nuff said.
Chat:     
Evidence  #648878
von AngloAndy (CA), Last modified: 2012-03-28, 04:12  like dislike  Spam?  
The following entry seems to buttress the argument for sources that are accessible to reviewers: http://contribute.dict.cc/?action=show-history&id=1097220 .

Reviewers are asked far too often to blindly accept far too much.

Far too often, far too little research is effected.
Entries seem to make it into dict.cc without regards to standard lexicographical practice far too often.

(This should not be construed as an attack on the responsible use of the OED or any other reference material.)
Chat:     
It seems to me  #648916
von ddr (AT), 2012-03-28, 08:50  like dislike  Spam?  
that things are getting turned upside down. To my mind a trans entered is a suggestion (which ought to be backed up by some kind of evidence), but it's the task of the verifiers to decide if it is valid or not, if the form is in accordance with GLs and if there is maybe a better, more dictionary-like way to get the information accross.  It's their task to find additional proof or disproof (thats what they get all those fancy points for).
If it were the other way round, people who work as translators just wouldn't find time to make entries and new contributors wouldn't have a chance to learn the doings.
I believe, a specialized dictionary somebody owns and works with is as good a primary source as the Web, though it is not available to most people. But, of course, beeing a book person, I always trust a book more than a ghit, even on hearsay.
There is, after all, also an element of trust in the whole game: Professional translators who enter their findings just have no reason to put in something wrong on purpose. In the worst case they might be mistaken for once. People of whom I know that they have a special field of knowledge or are close to being bilingual receive more initial trust than somebody I don't know anything about.
And I for one have no idea of 'standard lexicographical practice'. I am an amateur in this business. If I weren't, I wouldn't be doing this for free.
Chat:     
I just wanted to add sth to ddr's statement to make it true for me, too:  #648924
von parker11 (DE), Last modified: 2012-03-28, 09:19  like dislike  Spam?  
"People of whom I know that they have a special field of knowledge or are close to being bilingual receive more initial trust than somebody I don't know anything about", or the few who I know who are constantly delivering poor sources or are as far from bilingual as I can possibly think of. I'm not talking about newbies here;-)
Chat:     
ddr  #648927
von AngloAndy (CA), Last modified: 2012-03-28, 09:46  like dislike  Spam?  
--You an amateur? Your profile states that you are an Übersetzerin.

--When I was in translation school, in those faraway pre-Internet days, we were taught the rudiments of terminology and lexicography; that has stood me in good stead over the years when making those sometimes long and arduous searches for the mot juste.
Chat:     
I've translated quite a number of plays, yes.  #648933
von ddr (AT), 2012-03-28, 11:18  like dislike  Spam?  
A sufficient number to call myself 'Übersetzerin'. If I'd translated just two or three, I wouldn't. But I've never studied translation, otherwise I'd call myself 'DipomübersetzerIn', as  'ÜbersetzerIn' is not a 'geschützte Berufsbezeichnung'.
I'd agree of course if someone pointed out that translating literature is completely different from translating, say, a law text. But both are called translating.
Chat:     
Closed Sources not permissable in contributions   #648980
von joerg (DE), 2012-03-28, 20:52  like dislike  Spam?  
Um zurückzukommen auf die ursprüngliche Frage halte ich nicht es nicht nur für erforderlich einem Eintrag Quellen beizufügen die von allen Votern nachvollziehbar sind, sondern ich halte es auch in der Regel ganz einfach und ohne großen Aufwand für möglich.

Verstehe gar nicht wie man gegen diese "Forderung" so einen Aufstand entfachen kann.

Optional: Login | Registrieren 
  Frage beantworten oder Kommentar hinzufügen
Please log in to post an answer to this thread - or post a new question.
nach oben | home© 2002 - 2019 Paul Hemetsberger | Impressum / Datenschutz
Dieses Deutsch-Englisch-Wörterbuch basiert auf der Idee der freien Weitergabe von Wissen. Mehr Informationen!
Enthält Übersetzungen von der TU Chemnitz sowie aus Mr Honey's Business Dictionary (Englisch/Deutsch). Vielen Dank dafür!
Links auf dieses Wörterbuch oder einzelne Übersetzungen sind herzlich willkommen! Fragen und Antworten