If nobody's reading them and nobody's writing them, then perhaps it doesn't matter. We could let Wikipedia-Greenlandic persist as its own evolved language that forks from the original.
> potentially pushing the most vulnerable languages on Earth toward the precipice as future generations begin to turn away from them.
OK? We have lots of dead languages. It's fine. People use whatever languages are appropriate to them and we don't need to maintain them forever.
It's ironic that the "solution" to the problem is being driven by yet another person that isn't native to Greenland.
While they may be a Greenlandic teacher, it's almost assured that they are teaching western Greenlandic, which is similar to Canadian Inuktitut.
People in the East of Greenland speak a language that has similarities, but is different enough in vocabulary and sounds that it's often considered a separate language and not a dialect.
When people from East and West Greenland come together, they typically speak Danish because they can't understand each other in their own native language.
So we're talking about a country that has 55k people and a portion of them don't even speak the official language.. This guy would have no way of knowing whether something was written poorly by a computer or a poorly educated greenlandic native that maybe isn't so good with the official language.
Given that the majority of the country's citizens do not use the internet at all, it is not even clear what his solution is other than just deciding to be some sort of magic arbiter .. which is not realistic or sustainable.
> an American teenager – who does not speak Scots, the language of Robert Burns – has been revealed as responsible for almost half of the entries on the Scots language version of Wikipedia
It wasn't malicious either, it was someone who started editing Wikipedia at 12 and naively failed to recognise the damage they were doing.
> Wehr, who now teaches Greenlandic in Denmark, speculates that perhaps only one or two Greenlanders had ever contributed.
That's the core issue, it's not those who use AI translator or worst like Google translate. If there isn't any Greenlander to contribute to their Wikipedia, they don't deserve to have one and instead must rely on other languages.
The difference between an empty Wikipedia and one filled with translated articles that contains error isn't much. They should instead close that version of Wikipedia until there are enough volunteers.
Wikipedia editors is among the many communities that have for a long time mostly successfully relied on the tendency of relatively superficial, easy to validate capabilities (such as being able to use a website, write something resembling real language, and handle basic communication) to correlate with more valuable but harder to validate qualities (such as ability to write reasonably well and follow rules/guidelines, and generally being a well-intentioned person) as one of their main barriers to entry. Attributable to the deluge of commercial LLMs[0] available at such low prices that their operators lose millions to billions of dollars in order to gain market share and ultimately profit, such communities may not be able to continue to exist as is for long, I suspect: either they would be forced to institute more intrusive barriers (be that ID verification, invite-only memberships, or something else)
while the deluge lasts, or they may be effectively destroyed when members secretly lacking the requisite qualities and act in bad faith become a majority, damage community’s reputation, and drive out the existing members.
[0] Which paradoxically to a significant degree exist thanks to the unpaid work of volunteers in many of such communities.
LLMs destroying Wikipedia would be incredibly sad and is one of the things that makes me think that LLMs will have a strong negative impact on the lives of most people.
That happens by default in low-resource languages, no bad translations needed. They don't have enough either written material to train an LLM, or labels for time periods and various dialects in a continuum. For example even the best multilanguage models will lump up all Berber languages into one unstable abomination nobody speaks, usually writing it in Neo-Tifinagh. Not much can be done about that, training a model in all varieties of these would require a huge specialized effort.
I've lived in a couple of countries where there is a "vulnerable" language. I understand the emotional attachment that the native speakers have to their language.
However, in the larger picture: languages evolve. New ones develop, old ones die. Do artificial attempts to "rescue" a language really make sense?
The AI slopwave is about as close to natural linguistic evolution as world war 2 was to natural selection (..aaand there we hit godwin's law, I'll see myself out)
Wow, fuck that site. I had to dismiss 2 cookie banners and 3 popups before I could even read anything, then the second I scrolled one pixel another one popped up.
While it makes sense that LLMs and machine translation systems primarily rely on English Wikipedia as a data source, depending on smaller-language Wikipedias for training is far less ideal. English Wikipedia is generally well-regulated by its community, but many other language editions are not — so treating all of Wikipedia as an authoritative source is misguided.
For instance, my mother tongue’s Wikipedia (Korean Wikipedia) suffers from serious governance issues. The community often rejects outside contributors, and many experienced editors have already moved to alternative platforms. As a result, I sometimes get mixed, low-quality responses in my native language when using LLMs.
Ultimately, we need high-quality open data. Yet most Korean-language content is locked behind walled gardens run by chaebols like Naver and Kakao — and now they’re lobbying the government to fund their own “sovereign AI” projects. It’s a lose-lose situation.
13 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 35.6 ms ] thread> potentially pushing the most vulnerable languages on Earth toward the precipice as future generations begin to turn away from them.
OK? We have lots of dead languages. It's fine. People use whatever languages are appropriate to them and we don't need to maintain them forever.
While they may be a Greenlandic teacher, it's almost assured that they are teaching western Greenlandic, which is similar to Canadian Inuktitut.
People in the East of Greenland speak a language that has similarities, but is different enough in vocabulary and sounds that it's often considered a separate language and not a dialect.
When people from East and West Greenland come together, they typically speak Danish because they can't understand each other in their own native language.
So we're talking about a country that has 55k people and a portion of them don't even speak the official language.. This guy would have no way of knowing whether something was written poorly by a computer or a poorly educated greenlandic native that maybe isn't so good with the official language.
Given that the majority of the country's citizens do not use the internet at all, it is not even clear what his solution is other than just deciding to be some sort of magic arbiter .. which is not realistic or sustainable.
> an American teenager – who does not speak Scots, the language of Robert Burns – has been revealed as responsible for almost half of the entries on the Scots language version of Wikipedia
It wasn't malicious either, it was someone who started editing Wikipedia at 12 and naively failed to recognise the damage they were doing.
That's the core issue, it's not those who use AI translator or worst like Google translate. If there isn't any Greenlander to contribute to their Wikipedia, they don't deserve to have one and instead must rely on other languages.
The difference between an empty Wikipedia and one filled with translated articles that contains error isn't much. They should instead close that version of Wikipedia until there are enough volunteers.
[0] Which paradoxically to a significant degree exist thanks to the unpaid work of volunteers in many of such communities.
However, in the larger picture: languages evolve. New ones develop, old ones die. Do artificial attempts to "rescue" a language really make sense?
For instance, my mother tongue’s Wikipedia (Korean Wikipedia) suffers from serious governance issues. The community often rejects outside contributors, and many experienced editors have already moved to alternative platforms. As a result, I sometimes get mixed, low-quality responses in my native language when using LLMs.
Ultimately, we need high-quality open data. Yet most Korean-language content is locked behind walled gardens run by chaebols like Naver and Kakao — and now they’re lobbying the government to fund their own “sovereign AI” projects. It’s a lose-lose situation.