Discuss unclear forms, preserve evidence, and distinguish submissions from reviewed language knowledge.
Language review asks whether material is understandable, accurate in its intended context, and useful to the people who will read or hear it. A correction should explain what changes and why, rather than simply replacing text without retaining its meaning.
This page describes the public responsibilities around a contribution. It does not prescribe administrative controls or claim that the application uses particular status labels.
A contribution is a proposal. Someone may need to clarify its meaning, source, spelling, or example before it can be relied on as a reference. A submission confirmation and an editorial decision answer different questions.
Similarly, a resource appearing in one place does not guarantee that every related app already presents the same material. When you ask about a discrepancy, identify the actual page, entry, or recording you encountered.
| Issue | Include in your correction |
|---|---|
| Spelling | Original form, proposed form, and the context or evidence for the change |
| Meaning or definition | The intended sense and why the current explanation misrepresents it |
| Translation | Original passage, target language, and the meaning that needs preserving |
| Grammar or agreement | Full expression and relevant grammatical or situational context |
| Audio | Recording reference, written form, and the relevant moment or sound |
| Cultural context | The account, its source, and the part that needs clarification |
A display or loading problem is different from a language correction. If the text is cut off or an audio control fails, describe the action and observed behavior in a help request.
Retain the original and the proposed replacement. Explain whether you believe one is a correction, a different sense, or another usage that deserves its own explanation. An unfamiliar form is not enough evidence to conclude that another speaker’s contribution is mistaken.
A useful discussion can end with a clearer explanation rather than one form replacing every alternative. Where the evidence is insufficient, name the uncertainty and the kind of example that would help resolve it.
Tabula’s public product description limits AI to translation and guarding. It does not assign AI the creation or approval of Kifuliiru entries. A useful automated suggestion still needs to preserve the original meaning and be evaluated in context.
When a suggestion is disputed, keep the Kifuliiru source, target language, and intended sense together. Accepting fluent-sounding text without checking its meaning can replace a clear contribution with an inaccurate one.
When the available process gives you an outcome, read what was changed or what clarification remains. If the issue continues, report the current example rather than assuming that a previous message establishes its present state.
Use the contribution template to prepare a focused report. The community guide explains respectful disagreement and the official participation expectations.
