Talk:Babylon (program)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale

Contents

[edit] Ad or Encyclopedia Entry?

I used to use Babylon quite a bit when it was free and people contributed dictionaries and terms. I also knew an number of other other people who used to too. That is no longer the case--and I made a revision to the Babylon entry today, reflecting that reality. Babylon used to be a good program, even a great program, but not anymore. It uses a bad business model and, in my opinion, the company ripped a lot of people off by taking their open source (like) dictionaries. What I want to know is why my revision was so quickly deleted.

Read WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought etc, ⌠Yellow up⌡ 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I would love for you to explain to me how "is considered" to be different from "was considered". Neutral Point of view? Original thought? Give me a break... As I said before, this entry reads like an advertisement, where no negative points can be said about the product. Indeed, you seem to have a fairly vested interest in this software. How much is Babylon paying you to watch over this page? The truth is out there, although apparently not on Wiki.
You can think whatever you want, I didn't write "is considered" and I don't care that you removed it but you mustn't add your thoughts about the program here. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 11:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As I suggested below, perhaps a criticism section should be added. There are valid criticisms--not mine alone I might add--that would be useful for users and/or people thinking about buying the software. While we are at it, we might also want to suggest alternative free and open source resources that do the same as Babylon.

You can't add criticism to everything, you add it only when it is popular enough. Otherwise you can add "Criticism" to articles such as cat. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)`
Not quite true. And who are you to be the judge of what to criticize or not? Babylon was popular and it screwed up, making it an interesting case-study. Perhaps the entry for MSN messenger might be a better example to follow. In any event, I am not convinced that your changes are done in good faith. Perhaps this should be mediated by a third party? Taking the Microsoft Messenger example, I am reverting the changes you made. Teguiste 08:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not judging what to criticise and what not. When you add criticism, it must be from a reliable source, not a forum post or a deduction from a Google ranking chart. Otherwise you could add a critisicm section to A, saying that some people don't like the letter's form, I'm sure you can find some people saying that in blogs or forums. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 20:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't just any forum--it was a forum on Babylon's site (since removed, but held on waybackmachine)--that explained some of the problems with Babylon Translator. And to differ, Google Trends explicitly shows the decline of the program's popularity. IMHO, both are valid sources to document the decline of this particular program.Teguiste 08:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia function

Babylon translator seem to have a "Wikipedia dictionnary" avalable. If you click on "Napoleon" with this babylon, you get the wikipedia article Napoleon. If I can , I will send a screen shoot of that. Yug

It shows only the first few lines though, with a link to go directly to the article. -TonyW 23:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text Translation

I claim Babylon's accuracy with "Full Text Translation" is worth noting in the article, since it is factual information. Any objections? Anonymous --212.199.170.75 15:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Time bomb functionality

I've added information about the time bomb functionality of older versions. I think it's a notable addition because the free versions have been major contributors to Babylon's popularity. Anonymous --212.199.170.75 16:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yellow up, I see you removed my additions. May I ask, are you affiliated with Babylon? I was trying to provide facts that are free from prejudice. I might be judging software by providing the information, but my intention is to provide information that is not biased. --212.199.170.75 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with Babylon. We don't review programs here, we do not criticize them and we do not report any bug and/or problem with a program. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, just to let you know, a lot of articles about software applications here look more like reviews than regular articles, and many of them contain public opinion. and btw, I have nothing against Babylon, I actually like the software. --212.199.170.75 00:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: To the best of my memory, the information that I added and got removed [1] is accurate, but in order to check whether it's still actual, I'm searching for Babylon version 2. --212.199.170.75 20:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that to the best of your memory it is accurate. Additionally, even if it were accurate, it is completely irrelevant to the article. P.S. it was never "designed as freeware", even the first versions of Babylon said it's a "time-limited trial version", but the time was not really limited, so even if Babylon had added a limit, that's reasonable. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, if it's accurate then it's quite relevant, or at least can be made relevant by editing it properly, since it is the program's history and provides some detail about the inner workings of the program. It could be that I've witnessed this feature in v1 but I'm not sure. And regarding your comment that it was never designed as freeware, I have a link that proves otherwise. Check this link: Babylon.com freeware at Usenet newsgroups --212.199.170.75 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that in your opinion it's quite relevant, but it's not. It's obvious you have some motive to criticize Babylon. I don't know about those Usenet results, I know that I have been using Babylon for a long time, since v2.0 if I'm not mistaken and the "About" window always said "Time-limited". ⌠Yellow up⌡ 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I also think I have some motive to criticize Babylon, since I'd like to see the prices getting better and the program getting improved among other things. I guess more neutrality is needed in order to make important contributions that are widely accepted in Wikipedia. --212.199.170.75 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software issues

I think it might be relevant to include information about unresolved issues in versions that are still being used today [2]. Anonymous --212.199.170.75 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] criticism section

perhaps a criticism section could be included. Windows Vista has one. Why not Babylon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.37.55.9 (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Because Babylon isn't as criticised as Windows Vista is, ⌠Yellow up⌡ 11:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, good answer. I have another theory: you likely work for them.
And I'd say I'm the only one in this discussion page who is not interested. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think any article should have a criticism section if there are criticisms, as there clearly are. - hmwithtalk 07:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no criticisms from real sources. There are only people complaining it costs money instead of being free. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 14:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That is not true. They were people complaining about the appropriation of community built dictionaries. Read the discussion on the link I gave. Teguiste 14:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Complaints of users are not considered criticism, there are complaints for everything in the world. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 15:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly!... and the articles should note the complaints. - hmwithtalk 19:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If I write in a forum that my dog leaves hair on my couch, and I see two other people writing it in forums, should this information be added to Dog? Complaints shouldn't be in articles, only criticism from significant sites. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 20:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the most irrelevant comparison that I have ever heard. If it was about dog's shedding, and there was an article about shedding dogs, and there are many discussions about how much a certain amount of dog sheds, maybe one could mention how owners say that dog sheds a lot. As someone said before, Windows Vista has complaints. Anything that it reputable enough has complaints. Good luck reaching a compromise! - hmwithtalk 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the German and French Wikipedia versions of this page do discuss complaints and issues. The German page discusses the transition to freeware and the loss of community. The text roughly reads:

Babylon was published 1997. The program spread fast, since thousands users provided and for the free Download offered world-wide free dictionaries to numerous areas. For some years the program however only available offered, at the same time function older versions no longer. Nevertheless the dictionaries and listings provided free of charge by the users are offered further by the company Babylon. That access to it is possible however only for buyers of the program. This led to substantial annoying in the Community, because freiwillige was used the commitment of the users for commercial purposes. The Babylon translator lost its earlier meaning by its commercialization.(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_Translator, translation: [[3]]).

The French page mentions the inclusion of spyware:

Les premières versions de Babylon étaient gratuites.
Ensuite, il y a eu des versions publiciel pour lesquelles l'utilisateur avait le choix entre payer une licence ou activer une publicité sélective. Afin d'afficher des publicités sélectives, le logiciel espion New.net s'installait en même temps que Babylon.http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon

Note the lack of references in both. Could it be that these problems are common knowledge, like how the sky is blue? Also note the lack of resistance in these pages in calling a spade a spade. Stay tuned for quick revisions to the French and German Wikipedia entries. Teguiste 06:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Returned criticism section with source. In my opinion, the qustionable act of including spyware with software deserves to be noted. Teguiste 09:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. However I think it should be renamed to 'Controversy' because the criticism was not received directly from major sources (some sources were quoting users criticizing it, and I guess it may not count as criticism according to Wikipedia's policies). I assume it was simply not popular enough to receive direct criticism. --Coptervibes 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

EDIT WARS removing sections because you don't like them is not helpful.Teguiste 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: development and editing of entry

I have made a number of additions to this entry (as have others) only to have them reverted or by member Yellow Up. This member seems especially sensitive to any criticism of the program that is considered. In my opinion, Yellow Up has become somewhat proprietary of this entry.Teguiste 08:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Critisicm section isn't encyclopedic, it's original research, deductions from Google charts and forums, etc. Version History is irrelevant too. Company Information is already in the article. An article about a program is not a place to advertise similar programs. I am not proprietary of this article, however it is in my watch list and I am an experienced user of Wikipedia (especially he:) so I do know what I am talking about. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 14:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tequiste that a criticism section is appropriate in just about any encyclopedia article (in a perfect world, this criticism would be perfectly integrated throughout the entire article); I concur with Yellow up that the criticism must meet verifiability and NOR standards. So yes, article could have criticism section, no, proposed section is currently not good enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orphic (talk • contribs) 05:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Babylon Translator is an interesting example of what happened when a community based project became private. In 2000 it was one of the most popular downloads. Today, hardly anyone speaks of it. Source material is hard to find, mostly because no-one has review it since 2001 or so. As well, the community has evaporated. There are some interesting lessons here and I think Wikipedia is a good place to document them. In regards to sources, criticisms are opinions and there is no better place to understand how a user base is responding to a program than forums. As to seniority, as far as I know, you are a 10 year old using your mother's computer. Does it really matter if you claim to "be experienced"? Teguiste 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And as far as I know you work for a competitor. Obviously free software are more popular than software which cost money. Wikipedia is definitely not the place to document what you said, that's original thoughts. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Coming from RFC: There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a criticism section in a Wikipedia article on software; however, it should be based primarily on independent reviews (with links to them online, if possible). The sources cited in this version are not really adequate. The Google Trends page merely shows the fact that Google translator has become much more popular than Babylon over the last years, without any indication of why. And message forums are not considered reliable sources. So, go out and find published reviews written by professional reviewers, and use those as your sources. —Angr 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two sources here that need to be delt with seperately. The first is an old (and now removed) user's forum on Babylon.com. While not a scientific article (or the like) it does reflect how users felt about the software at the time, which I think comes out in the wording of my contribution. In this case, it is a closed forum from six or seven years ago. If truth be told, it could be considered a primary source. The guidelines cited on your link reliable sources suggest the following standards should be used:
Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.[4]
Therefore, in my reading of these guidelines, my use of forums can be considered entirely appropriate.
In regards to my use of Google Trends, I wrote something akin to "Babylon has lost popularity relative to other products". I think Google Trends reflects that nicely. Of course Google Trends doesn't show a why of this happening and I don't think I explicitly wrote a "why". Building a Wiki entry is gradual. Moreover, when someone is constantly deleting one's contributions there is a limit to the investment one is willing to give. Teguiste 16:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree. WP:RS says "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." That simply does not apply to users' forums. As for Google Trends, it does immediately raise flags when you're using a Google tool to show that another Google tool is more popular than Babylon. It would be much better if you could find an independent, impartial third party source to show it. —Angr 09:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input.WP:RSis a guideline, not a strict set of rules. In this case we are talking about a community based research project--not unlike Wikipedia--that was made into a fee-paying service overnight. Like Wikipedia, people voice their opinion on forums, making them a living witness to processes and events; in other words a primary source. In any event, perhaps you should look at the common sense rule [5]which might give those who are being finicky about this something to chew over. (I know, ignore all rules is the official policy, some of which I also think apply here.) About use of Google Trends, I highly doubt if Google has any motive in rigging the results; if i just used "Babylon Translator" the results would still show a declining interest. Teguiste 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement

Please let me know why this article is marked as an advertisement. All the experienced users here agree that although a criticism paragraph can be added, it cannot include information from forums or Google charts, and this is the only kind of criticism which was added. Admins supported the last revision, so why is it marked as an advertisement? ⌠Yellow up⌡ 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been mentioned by many editors here that there should be a criticism section. - hmwithtalk 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It has been mentioned that there can be a criticism section, only if there is criticism. You can't add a criticism section if there is no criticism! And they all agreed the given criticism isn't real. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 18:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, there is a lot of criticism. If you scroll through this page, you'll see quite a few, e.g. the timebomb criticism, hence deleted and buried.. Beyond that, there is the issue of: a)switching from a freeware to payware model; b) using adware; c) attaching Cydoor to the adware and d) essentially destroying a nascent open source community. Also, criticism can be found on Babylon's business strategy, especially during the dotcom crisis. Reverting to circular arguments and outright denial that criticism existed, has made me suspect of this whole debate. Teguiste 20:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. That is why I added it. - hmwithtalk 20:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Strange how quickly the advertisement warning was removed. Teguiste 21:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teguiste (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Third opinion

Speedy deletion is not appropriate for this article. If deletion might be appropriate, I would recommend listing the article on articles for deletion. Speedy delete tags are not for forcing discussion regarding deletion. AfD is the appropriate venue to generate and review a deletion debate. Internet forums are not a reliable published source. Even blogs and websites are usually not considered appropriate sources. Internet forums are simply not proper sources. Vassyana 19:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that "usually not condered appropriate sources" is a key phrase. Indeed, the appropriateness of forums has been discussed elsewhere, ending usually with a hung jury. Here's a good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive5#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis.2C_and_posts_to_Usenet. In any case, my addition attempted to illustrate user frustration with the changes that occured at babylon.com between approx. 2001-2002. There are numerous complaints ranging from the quality of upgrades, the abandonment of freeware and the appropriation of glossaries and dictionaries created by the community. (Here's one example, signed from someone at IBM: [[6]])In other words, it isn't just one lunatic ranting, but the community complaining. If this isn't a primary source, than I don't know what is.
On another note, when will it be possible to start working on a version that doesn't sound like a pitch for the company? Teguiste 20:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It was up for deletion, but Yellow removed the tag... more than once. Note that I came in as a THIRD OPINION too! - hmwithtalk 19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It was never up for an AfD. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 20:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It was up for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babylon_%28program%29&oldid=128247883 - hmwithtalk 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yellow said that "many admins said there is no need for criticism section if there is no real criticism!" That's not everything about which I am talking. This article simply reads like an advertisement to me. It sounds like the company itself wrote it to promote the product. If you don't agree with me, then delete the template. That's just my opinion on it. - hmwithtalk 20:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I've suggested that this page be merged with Babylon Ltd. Most of the information is duplicated--Babylon Ltd perhaps has more information on the software than this page. Any opinions? Can someone help?? Teguiste 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. I'm in favor of merging this article into Babylon Ltd. Even then, the combined article would qualify for an AfD nomination, in my opinion. But I'd say merge them first and clean up, then we'll see. -Amatulic 21:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and above. - hmwithtalk 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, merging Babylon Ltd. into Babylon program. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 11:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Why you put an entire company article into the program's? That doesn't make sense. - hmwithtalk 12:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment:I actually agree with Yellow. It is the program that is of principal interest, not the company.Teguiste 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Response: Well, I retract my comment. You're right. It's not like the company's known for anything else, is it? - hmwithtalk 17:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amount of information

I think the article needs to have less information about the company and more information about the program. --Coptervibes 23:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The information about the company was apparently the result of a merge from another article. Encyclopedia articles should be encyclopedic.
That said, I think this article is borderline worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I will not nominate it for deletion (yet) but I have tagged it with a {{notability}} for now. The lead paragraph certainly fails to establish any notabilty for this product, leaving me thinking that it's fairly obscure and doesn't warrant an article about it. -Amatulic 16:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I have removed the notability tag, as its notability is easily establish in the sentence "By 2000, the company claimed over 4 million users [6]and the program was ranked among the most popular downloads by ZDnet France, AOL Germany, and Tucows, among others.[7]" -Oreo Priest 12:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The tag still belongs there because the lead section doesn't explain why the product or the company is notable. -Amatulic 17:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] which languages are supported in the Machine translation feature ?

I have prepared this article - Comparison of Machine translation applications but I can't find any list of the Machine Translation languages which Babylon can translate between.. if anybody has this information please fill it in the table. Acidburn24m 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL incompatible

http://www.babylon.com/display.php?id=61&tree=145&level=2

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 07:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)