| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | How about to establish a kind of arbitration for translation quality? Thread poster: Angie Garbarino
|
|---|
Uldis Liepkalns 
Latvia
Local time: 10:35
Member (2003)
English to Latvian
+ ...
ProZ.com by definition *IS NOT* a Party in any bilateral relations between the Outsourcer and the Service Provider.
Uldis
John Paul Weir wrote:
An arbitrator by his very nature must be 'independent' so anyone with the least association with this site (as member, partial member, corporate member, moderator or whatever) would automatically be ruled out.
| | | | gianfranco
Brazil
Local time: 04:35
Member (2001)
English to Italian
+ ...
John Paul Weir wrote:
An arbitrator by his very nature must be 'independent' so anyone with the least association with this site (as member, partial member, corporate member, moderator or whatever) would automatically be ruled out.
The arbitrator, or arbitration team, simply need not to be partial. They should declare if they have any business interest or other reasons that may disqualify them as not impartial, and they are personally responsible, for a fee, about the content of their opinion, consultancy, technical findings and final documented resolution.
In case of a team of 3 arbitrators, where there is an arbitrator representing each of the parties, and a third independent arbitrator, the 3 together reach a consensus, on professional and linguistic basis, and communicate their findings, but, once again, ProZ.com is only the venue where the procedure is regulated and facilitated, but the site is not involved in any way in the arbitration's outcome.
I don't see how a ProZ.com membership makes the member not eligible to emit a professional opinion about the quality of a linguistic service, provided that he/she is selected on the basis of competence in the language pair and the subject of the disputed translation.
Gianfranco
[Edited at 2008-09-01 17:26]
| | | |
John Paul Weir wrote:
An arbitrator by his very nature must be 'independent' so anyone with the least association with this site (as member, partial member, corporate member, moderator or whatever) would automatically be ruled out.
Just thinking out loud, but surely all arbitrators must have some kind of connection with the arbitration organisation (i.e. Proz in this case, or a translators' association such as the IoL, etc.), else how will the arbitration organisation be able to contact them to avail itself of their services? So surely none is truly independent in that sense....?
| | | | | Putting limits to the procedure | Sep 1, 2008 |
It is probably true that if the potential arbitrators do not show to be impartial experts outsourcers may be reluctant to participate and even to post jobs if participation is mandatory. However, setting some limits might overcome that reluctance.
Some ideas:
1. ProZ selects and publishes a list of available arbitrators from its membership and/or outsiders. The complaining party selects three candidates from the list, the other picks one from the three. The selected a... See more It is probably true that if the potential arbitrators do not show to be impartial experts outsourcers may be reluctant to participate and even to post jobs if participation is mandatory. However, setting some limits might overcome that reluctance.
Some ideas:
1. ProZ selects and publishes a list of available arbitrators from its membership and/or outsiders. The complaining party selects three candidates from the list, the other picks one from the three. The selected arbitrator certifies he or she has no relationship (friendship, business or otherwise) with any of the parties.
2. The arbitrator's decision is binding, but no case over a certain amount (USD2,500 - USD5,000, the typical small claims court limits) can be subject to arbitration.
3. Outsourcer's participation, at least initially, is voluntary, but the participation or non-participation must be stated on the job posting.
By the participation being voluntary, there is no reason to assume we are going to lose job posters. By being known, the service providers will have another element to decide whether they want to do work for that poster.
In fact, I believe that if ProZ generates a list of capable people to serve as arbitrators, and we limit the amount that is subject to arbitration, the best outsourcers will be willing participants. They will avoid potentially having to respond in court unjustified claims from unhappy freelancers who are at fault, or having their reputation ruined by unjustified claims. These outsourcers are not trying to avoid paying what they owe.
My proverbial 2 cents.
Luis
[Edited at 2008-09-01 19:06] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Peter Linton (X)
Local time: 08:35
Swedish to English
+ ...
| Selecting arbitrators | Sep 1, 2008 |
gianfranco wrote:
I don't see how a ProZ.com membership makes the member not eligible to emit a professional opinion about the quality of a linguistic service, provided that he/she is selected on the basis of competence in the language pair and the subject of the disputed translation.
Gianfranco,
I'm sure you're right to argue that ProZ members are entitled to express a professional opinion. But what I find a stumbling block is the question of competence. Given that there are no rigourous membership requirements, as there are for most other translators' associations, how are arbitrators to be selected? This is not to doubt that there are plenty of competent translators in ProZ. But who will select them? Henry? On what basis? KudoZ points? Outsourcers' comments? Portfolio? Project history? Someone in ProZ will have to select arbitrators on the basis of perhaps limited and subjective information -- far less information than that required by other translators' associations. And will have to tell other fellow ProZ members they have not been selected.
As you say, Proz is just a venue. But i suspect arbitration would prove to be a minefield hidden in a swamp deep in a jungle.
| | | | JPW (X)
Local time: 08:35
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Independence (again) | Sep 1, 2008 |
By indepedent arbitrator I meant someone who is unconnected with either party in the dispute.
Yes, they need to have sufficient credentials to be able to mediate in the first place, that's a given (Charlie's point). So in that respect the arbitrator will almost certainly be a professional member of some body or other.
Yet, I don't see how an outsourcer who is disputing the quality of a piece of work which was advertised and subsequently assigned via this site would will... See more By indepedent arbitrator I meant someone who is unconnected with either party in the dispute.
Yes, they need to have sufficient credentials to be able to mediate in the first place, that's a given (Charlie's point). So in that respect the arbitrator will almost certainly be a professional member of some body or other.
Yet, I don't see how an outsourcer who is disputing the quality of a piece of work which was advertised and subsequently assigned via this site would willingly (or worse, compulsorily) submit to arbitration through the same site.
Any member of proz.com who was chosen to intervene on behalf of both parties may (I stress, may) be prone to an allegation of bias towards one party or the other: through collaboration on a previous occasion for example (there are many more I'm sure).
That surely is enough to void the whole process.
Another thought: how many of those who are following this thread so far would be willing to put themselves forward as an arbitrator, assuming such a scheme was set up? I'm not talking about a snap decision, but having first thought through all the implications which such a position would entail...
Clear guidelines etc. would need to be established beforehand, otherwise you could end up with a very arbitrary arbitration system.
Again, it's a noble idea but I just don't see how it could be made to work.
The best outsourcers may well be willing to take part in such a scheme, but I would contend that the ones who would avoid it like the plague are those outsourcers who refuse payment on the (very often) unsubstantiated allegation of lack of quality in the work produced, as an excuse not to pay. And then you're back at square one: how to get the unscrupulous ones to play a bit fairer. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Difficulties and potential solutions | Sep 1, 2008 |
John Paul Weir wrote:
Any member of proz.com who was chosen to intervene on behalf of both parties may (I stress, may) be prone to an allegation of bias towards one party or the other: through collaboration on a previous occasion for example (there are many more I'm sure).
That surely is enough to void the whole process.
This is always the case (potential relationships). But this not necessarily voids the process. Once upon a time we had a case in Texas where the judge, the plaintiff's attorney and the plaintiff were hunting buddies. And hunting buddies in Texas! We still won the case.
John Paul Weir wrote:
Another thought: how many of those who are following this thread so far would be willing to put themselves forward as an arbitrator, assuming such a scheme was set up? I'm not talking about a snap decision, but having first thought through all the implications which such a position would entail...
This is true. I know that I would be unwilling to serve as an arbitrator. And we have not yet considered any potential arbitrator's liability.
John Paul Weir wrote:
Clear guidelines etc. would need to be established beforehand, otherwise you could end up with a very arbitrary arbitration system.
Yes, indeed. Perhaps we should collect information from experts. Here I copy the URL of a site with links to the most important ADR organizations in t he US. Maybe ProZ could contact them to ask their opinions:
http://bostonlawcollaborative.com/resources/list-of-useful-links/professional-associations-non-profit-organizations.html
John Paul Weir wrote:
The best outsourcers may well be willing to take part in such a scheme, but I would contend that the ones who would avoid it like the plague are those outsourcers who refuse payment on the (very often) unsubstantiated allegation of lack of quality in the work produced, as an excuse not to pay. And then you're back at square one: how to get the unscrupulous ones to play a bit fairer.
Well, if they are unwilling to participate and say so on their job posting, this would be an unintended benefit of this project.
| | | | | You drove the point home, John | Sep 1, 2008 |
John Paul Weir wrote:
Again, it's a noble idea but I just don't see how it could be made to work.
The best outsourcers may well be willing to take part in such a scheme, but I would contend that the ones who would avoid it like the plague are those outsourcers who refuse payment on the (very often) unsubstantiated allegation of lack of quality in the work produced, as an excuse not to pay. And then you're back at square one: how to get the unscrupulous ones to play a bit fairer.
You are right in that crooks will be crooks. No arbitration will make them pay, and they will pay immediately for unusable sloppy work if the thugs you send there outnumber the ones they have.
The "good guys" will know where to ask, not for arbitration, but for an expert and unbiased assessment. I know because I've done it several times in my language pair.
I'm convinced that it's a noble idea, but that in view of the evidence introduced, it won't work. What works is, when bidding, to assess the risk factor of having to collect money on the other side of the globe.
| | |
|
|
|
Uldis Liepkalns
Latvia
Local time: 10:35
Member (2003)
English to Latvian
+ ...
Peter Linton wrote:
But what I find a stumbling block is the question of competence. Given that there are no rigourous membership requirements, as there are for most other translators' associations, how are arbitrators to be selected? This is not to doubt that there are plenty of competent translators in ProZ. But who will select them? Henry? On what basis? KudoZ points? Outsourcers' comments? Portfolio? Project history?
In most of the cases I have come across, secondary education in the target language should do as qualification criteria (recent example- back translation into English: "Gloves with long sleeves"- mind you that "sleeves" (piedurknes) in Latvian have shirts, but never gloves). Like in that joke- builders deliver the ready project- very wide and deep well with a light at the bottom. The client asks what it is, the builders hand him the drawings- "right as you ordered...". The client shifts and turns drawings, until finally exclaims "this was supposed to be a lighthouse!"
There was but one occasion in my experience when our very complex translation from English into Latvian (electronics + higher mathematics, I myself was able to understand only articles and prefixes in the source text) was proofed by one Latvian Birth and Death Certificates Agency with catastrophic results- 95% corrections. However, after some very nervous week this was cleared up by our client's Latvian end client himself, who was not only very happy with our translation, but even wondered how anybody can translate something so specific and complex into Latvian so well at all...
Uldis
[Rediģēts plkst. 2008-09-01 22:43]
| | | | | Is it a foregone conclusion that the site cannot apply this procedure? | Sep 1, 2008 |
I am still uncertain as to whether an arbitrators’ list provided by ProZ.com according to appropriate criteria would not be adequate. Look at the following article entitled “Challenging the qualifications of the reinsurance arbitrator”:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3968/is_200001/ai_n8884549/pg_3
While there are no specific... See more I am still uncertain as to whether an arbitrators’ list provided by ProZ.com according to appropriate criteria would not be adequate. Look at the following article entitled “Challenging the qualifications of the reinsurance arbitrator”:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3968/is_200001/ai_n8884549/pg_3
While there are no specific requirements for arbitrator qualifications in any statute in the United States,10 many reinsurance contracts typically contain some fairly generic arbitrator prerequisites. For example, common qualification requirements include that the arbitrators be "active or former officers or executives of insurance or reinsurance companies" or that the arbitrators be "neutral," "disinterested" or "impartial." Some arbitration provisions may call for application of the Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Under Section 18 of these rules a party may have an arbitrator replaced if any circumstances are disclosed by the arbitrator prior to the hearing which tend to suggest bias.
Cgertainly it would be difficult to establish such a procedure here, but I am not sure that it will be unfeasible. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Is arbitration really necessary? | Sep 1, 2008 |
Luis Arri Cibils wrote: I am still uncertain as to whether an arbitrators’ list provided by ProZ.com according to appropriate criteria would not be adequate. Look at the following article entitled “Challenging the qualifications of the reinsurance arbitrator”: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3968/is_200001/ai_n8884549/pg_3 While there are no specific requirements for arbitrator qualifications in any statute in the United States,10 many reinsurance contracts typically contain some fairly generic arbitrator prerequisites. For example, common qualification requirements include that the arbitrators be "active or former officers or executives of insurance or reinsurance companies" or that the arbitrators be "neutral," "disinterested" or "impartial." Some arbitration provisions may call for application of the Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Under Section 18 of these rules a party may have an arbitrator replaced if any circumstances are disclosed by the arbitrator prior to the hearing which tend to suggest bias. Cgertainly it would be difficult to establish such a procedure here, but I am not sure that it will be unfeasible.
Proz.com serves as a translation market provider and helps us to communicate with each other on different subjects. And if you take a look at the site you cant find any scientific resolutions. All resources that exist in the site should be treated either related to translation business or just an idea of us (I mean Articles, KudoZ, Forums etc.). But "arbitration" is a science and its a part of "Laws". If you would like to create an arbitration authority on something. then your system should include a background free from any conditions related to trade, comments, personal or organizational interests.
And there should be rules to be created by scientists (by linguists or accredited organizations).
For example:
As you know there is a Connect Platform on this site. And it's apart from the site, and includes only tools for employers and translators.
To my opinion, there should be another platform like Science of Translation. And this platform should include only scientific and objective information about Linguistics, Translation. May be interviews with academics, new approaches, new technologies, relationships with other subjects like economy, industry etc, and this should be developed in all languages. After 3 or 5 years of such activities and experience; may be it will be possible.
But now, I cant say that our proz.com "for now" is able to do and continue such arbitration with success.
| | | | | Actually, I don't want to create anything | Sep 1, 2008 |
M. Ali Bayraktar wrote: Luis Arri Cibils wrote: I am still uncertain as to whether an arbitrators’ list provided by ProZ.com according to appropriate criteria would not be adequate. Look at the following article entitled “Challenging the qualifications of the reinsurance arbitrator”: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3968/is_200001/ai_n8884549/pg_3 While there are no specific requirements for arbitrator qualifications in any statute in the United States,10 many reinsurance contracts typically contain some fairly generic arbitrator prerequisites. For example, common qualification requirements include that the arbitrators be "active or former officers or executives of insurance or reinsurance companies" or that the arbitrators be "neutral," "disinterested" or "impartial." Some arbitration provisions may call for application of the Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Under Section 18 of these rules a party may have an arbitrator replaced if any circumstances are disclosed by the arbitrator prior to the hearing which tend to suggest bias. Cgertainly it would be difficult to establish such a procedure here, but I am not sure that it will be unfeasible. Proz.com serves as a translation market provider and helps us to communicate with each other on different subjects. And if you take a look at the site you cant find any scientific resolutions. All resources that exist in the site should be treated either related to translation business or just an idea of us (I mean Articles, KudoZ, Forums etc.). But "arbitration" is a science and its a part of "Laws". If you would like to create an arbitration authority on something. then your system should include a background free from any conditions related to trade, comments, personal or organizational interests. And there should be rules to be created by scientists (by linguists or accredited organizations). For example: As you know there is a Connect Platform on this site. And it's apart from the site, and includes only tools for employers and translators. To my opinion, there should be another platform like Science of Translation. And this platform should include only scientific and objective information about Linguistics, Translation. May be interviews with academics, new approaches, new technologies, relationships with other subjects like economy, industry etc, and this should be developed in all languages. After 3 or 5 years of such activities and experience; may be it will be possible. But now, I cant say that our proz.com "for now" is able to do and continue such arbitration with success.
My clients do not come from ProZ. I will not benefit or be harmed by anything that ProZ decides to do or not to do.
For quite a long time, I thought that ProZ could do something in this respect, but knowing the difficulties, I never expected it would. I was surprised, to say the least, when Henry stated that he would like to hear more about it. After that, I started to think what could ProZ do about it and how. I have no vested interest in anything that ProZ does. I only stated that I was not yet convinced that nothing can be done. I am not convinced that anything can be done, either. I just wanted not to stop the discussion at this time when not all the data was on the table.
We are in a global market where the traditional methods to dispute resolution, mainly the courts, are ineffective. Nobody can litigate a $2,000 invoice unpaid by a Turkish agency, if one is located, say, in China. Conversely, no Turkish agency can enforce any obligation, amounting to $2,000, from a Chinese freelancer. The global market is developing their own enforcing organisms. Should ProZ be one of them? I have no idea. My participation was motivated only by Henry's declaration that he was willing to hear more. I am not here to tell Henry how he should run a business of his own. He has done it quite well so far without any assistance from me.
Since all my clients are based in the US, and I am a US lawyer able to defend myself, I have no vested interest at all. I am stopping my participation on this forum, even if it was designed as just brainstorming. No need to use my brain if is not welcome.
Regards,
Luis
[Edited at 2008-09-01 22:24]
| | |
|
|
|
JPW (X)
Local time: 08:35
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Actually, Luis... | Sep 1, 2008 |
I am stopping my participation on this forum, even if it was designed as just brainstorming. No need to use my brain if is not welcome.
Regardless of whether everyone or no one at all agrees with your ideas, they are still valid points for discussion.
Perhaps Henry was simply playing "devil's advocate" when he wanted to hear more ideas.
I still think if a system of arbitration were to be introduced it would quickly become overwhelmed to the point of farce as people flock to their 'citizen's court' to get justice (i.e. paid).
Freelancers would flock to it in droves and outsourcers would be ever increasingly reluctant to participate.
| | | |
John Paul Weir wrote: I am stopping my participation on this forum, even if it was designed as just brainstorming. No need to use my brain if is not welcome. Regardless of whether everyone or no one at all agrees with your ideas, they are still valid points for discussion.
My point exactly
| | | | Angie Garbarino
Local time: 09:35
Member (2003)
French to Italian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Thank you all | Sep 2, 2008 |
I appreciated your participation, I think that from now on (for new clients only) I will prepare by my self a sort of document (will have to think about its contents), stating that in case of dispute an independent translator will judge the final job.
I feel this is a problem for me, cannot be subjected to malicious or incompetent proofreaders, and need/want to find a solution,
Best!
[Edited at 2008-09-02 07:27]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » How about to establish a kind of arbitration for translation quality? | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
