Publication of unedited machine translations
You might try producing the notice in both the language of the original and the translation.
Sure, why not.
This reminds me of the classic occasion where a Welsh translation was requested by e-mail to the translation department of a government organisation and the e-mail reply duly published.
Heh :)
Do you want some input on composing the text of the notice?
Sure.
I do get the impression you are a bit off on the usage of this extension though; it's not meant to publish translations. It's intended to be used on technical articles by people that can not read the language they are in, so they can understand what's written. Not to create a new page (or do any other form of publishing) with the translated text.
OK - nice to know what its intended use is. If you could guarantee that no-one else would try to use this extension in other wikis then there would not be any issue. But given that Mediawiki is open-source software I am concerned how this software could potentially be applied either in existing wikis or any new wikis yet to be dreamt of....
I will have a think about potential wording - unfortunately am very busy at work just now.
OK - here is a draft of a message to appear before the translation, in both the language of the source and of the translation:
Here follows a machine translation, possibly incomplete and containing errors of grammar. This machine translation is not intended to be published or distributed without first being edited by a person who understands the languages of both the source and the translation.
I have added a section on 'optional disclaimer' to the documentation page of the extension. Perhaps you could amend as you see fit, when the software has been updated?
That's a good idea to have as an option, but how about simpler wording, like: "This is a machine translation, that most likely contains a variety of errors. It is not intended to be directly published or distributed."
I don't mind the message being shorter; I suppose more people are likely to read a disclaimer the shorter it is. The disadvantage is that 'variety' and 'directly' don't convey a specific meaning to those who don't understand the background to this. However, I can't come up with any alternatives that are better, so agree with the latest wording, except that I don't know whether 'most likely' is acceptable in written American English, instead of 'probably'.
