I just remember an interesting thread related to this topic from a few months back:
Actions against spam translators. Although the referenced topic has a clear context, narrower than the one being dealt with here, some of the discussion there applies here.
Since Google translations are being mentioned here in this thread, and the related rule against automated translations, I still have my doubts on its exact interpretation, and even more so as time goes by and the tools improve in their results (as of late, when referencing sources in Spanish on English boards on the matter of latam new, I tend to include the link to the Google Translation, finding it to be for the most, perfectly readable and very close to the original source’s context).
I expressed my doubts here, which still remain as such:
I’d like to take a step back in this conversation, and revisit the spirit of rule 27: "
Using automated translation tools to post translated content in Local boards is not allowed."
Here I lack the full history in order to know the exact reason why it was proposed as a rule, but it was seemingly conceived in this post:
9. Discussions in the main boards must be in english. All other language discussions should be posted in the appropriate Local board.
Please expand on this with a note to the effect that "Automated machine translation, such as using google translate, does not reach the standard required to post in English." or similar. The same can be added for posting in local language boards.
Added rule 27:
27. Using automated translation tools to post translated content in Local boards is not allowed.
Here I’m talking from a conceptual point of view, and not about specific cases. Now I figure that the rule had, in principle, the objective of facilitating a seamless conversation and/or understanding on what is posted on a local board. If that were the objective, then would automated translations that are clearly intelligible be permitted? What if they only strayed a few words here and there, but were still easily intelligible?
Something that has a terrible translation is obviously subpar, and certainly falls under the said rule, but on broarder terms, and just as an afterthought, we probably see a fair share of that on regular posts in the English sections, made by or assisted by tools used by non-native people.
What I’m trying to get at is whether these tools, and their output, are not allowed per se (as the rule reads), or if they are if the result is good enough (albeit not perfect). <…>
Note: I don't expect people to frequently resort to Google Translate or such to post on a local board, which would seem rather unnatural as a habit, but sparse non-spam/non-plagiarized like comprehensible posts could probably be given an easy pass. Every now and then, someone non-native to my local board does so, often to clarify something after being mentioned in a local board post. The resulting assisted post is, more often than not, readable and welcome.