"This comment is well-meaning, but it is both naive and technically flawed in several key ways. Let’s unpack why it's wrong and even counterproductive, especially when it comes to topics like science and mathematics." ...snip snip... "TL;DR: The comment is naive because it overestimates the capabilities of machine translation for precise scientific knowledge, underestimates cultural context in science/math, and proposes a solution that would undermine Wikipedia’s decentralized, community-driven model. It wrongly frames linguistic diversity as a weakness instead of a strength."
See my replies in the sibling threads. I give concrete examples of both the weakness of non-English wikipedias in mathematics and of the quality of machine translation. I understand that you want to believe the happy clappy cultural diversity thing, but sadly is and ought are not the same thing.
You shouldn't respond lazily like that.
The point is that the quality of a wikipedia page is positively correlated with the number of editors working on it.
I mean, even according to ChatGPT[1]...
1: https://gist.github.com/numpad0/2fcf3e61d57f07d8e3a65743a43b...
See my replies in the sibling threads. I give concrete examples of both the weakness of non-English wikipedias in mathematics and of the quality of machine translation. I understand that you want to believe the happy clappy cultural diversity thing, but sadly is and ought are not the same thing.