| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | Should “native language” claims be verified? Thread poster: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
| ProZ is definitely a site where there are a lot of professional people | Jul 21, 2012 |
and please don't make everybody look like 99% of the users are liars, fraudsters, if there is such a word, and almost criminals. Do not treat professional people, some of you, like candidates just about to enter a kindergarden, or sign up for preschool activities.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X) 
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:24
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Still looking for that "interim solution" | Jul 21, 2012 |
Having initially thought that nationality was a rather pointless detail to post, I now think it would be a handy extra verification tool. Yes, there will be exceptions, but why not have it? Plenty of agencies and other translation sites ask the same question. The only issue I see is that if it is voluntary, an outsourcer coming to the site for the first time won't know that those not displaying their nationality have actually not have it? Plenty of agencies and other translation sites ask the same question. The only issue I see is that if it is voluntary, an outsourcer coming to the site for the first time won't know that those not displaying their nationality have actually chosen to withhold that piece of information. It would just be a subtle omission. So, believe it or not, I would vote for trusting people to be honest and everyone would have to state their nationality(ies). Somehow I imagine people would find it easier to lie about their native language than their nationality. No verification would mean zero site admin (the number one consideration if we have any hope at all of changing anything anytime too soon). I also imagine that there would be great (and understandable) reluctance on the part of many to start submitting scanned pages of passports to ProZ.
Despite the title of this thread, I think we’ve moved on and we’re pretty much all agreed that something needs to be done and verification definitely needs to be bumped up the agenda. However, I feel that pending any decisions on suitable methods of verification, we need to put forward an interim solution to site staff that will not purge users. With that in mind I see the following options:
1) An email is sent to every registered user explaining that there are concerns about inaccurate profiles and that these should be revised carefully with particular attention paid to native languages and credentials. Questions such as those put forward by Janet could be included in the email as a guideline and way of focusing people’s minds on exactly what a "native language" means.
2) Clearer native speaker icons. Instead of teeny-tiny grey/black and blue/yellow icons, the difference should be clearly spelled out. Native languages should be followed by the words “Verified” or “Not-Verified”.
3) An option when posting jobs or searching the directory to filter for Verified/Not-Verified languages (along the lines of Bernhard's suggestion).
4) Adding “Nationality” to our profiles. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 12:24
Chinese to English
| No objections here | Jul 21, 2012 |
I would have no problem with adding nationality verification. It would be another datum that agencies can take into account, and would have benefits beyond our discussion here, as some jobs require citizenship of particular countries.
| | | | | I am just glad I kept my citizenship | Jul 21, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: septima wrote:
Scanning and emailing the relevant pages would take 5 mins. PROZ would charge a nominal fee for processing the verification, and then it would be done. One more nugget of incontestable fact on a translator's profile. What is there to lose? I absolutely agree, there's nothing to lose and I'm quite in favour of the idea. I just think there will be those who will fight tooth and nail against it as they might perceive it as a negative (or as a threat to their misrepresentation!).
I have not given up my Austrian citizenship yet.
There are many excellent translators who do not live in their countries of origin/citizenship but are very successful translating into their native language and/or teaching that language.
Besides, I can't see how it will solve the problems stemming from people falsely claiming a native language. It might actually hurt that objective.
If I were a US citizen, people might assume I am a native speaker of English. But that's not true.
Or, the other way round, if someone were US born and had lived for 25 years in Austria and now has Austrian citizenship, people might take him/her for a native-"level" German speaker.
Scanning and sending out documents might also pose some problems. I for one don't like to make copies of such personal papers, and copies, unless they're certified, don't mean anything. And, there is more room for fraud.
septima wrote:
An outsourcer, searching for a quality, native English speaking, legal translator for some GB contracts, would obviously search based on the individual CVs and references of translators. It's highly unlikely that a hypothetical "British "citizen" [who doesn't] speak a word of English" would get very far.
I don't think your suggestion pertains mainly to British nationals who don't speak a word of English. The question is what are the consequences when someone equals citizenship with native language proficiency.
Just because somebody is no longer a citizen of their country of origin doesn't mean they don't speak their native language anymore.
Many German-born translators live in the United States. Some might still have their German/Austrian citizenship. But many don't. But these non-nationals have excellent English language skills. They should be very much considered for an EN>GER job. They have an excellent understanding of the source text and are native speakers of the target language. Besides, they live in the US which makes them attractive to US clients.
However, the point is to verify native language proficiency. Nationality is not a good indicator for that. Especially when it comes to translators who are not necessarily residing in their country of origin or citizenship.
Country of origin, schooling and work are much better indicators.
B
[Edited at 2012-07-21 19:40 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
double entry
[Edited at 2012-07-21 19:07 GMT]
| | | | | (Which) Nationality? | Jul 21, 2012 |
I had a nice little essay all planned out, but Bernhard just beat me to it.
Basically, the fact of the matter is that people can hold multiple nationalities for whatever reason (I do), which means that proving/verifying their nationality will really shed no light on their language abilities.
| | | | | And for non-compliance? | Jul 21, 2012 |
re: nationality:
1. No harm in it per se, but once again (as has been said, I think), it's an attribute of the person, not a competence level.
2. In threads where people raise questions because they have been asked to provide a passport number/scan, the advice is consistently "don't do it". Find out what the agency is trying to achieve and see if there is another method. It seems a bit perverse for the site to adopt a policy its users are consistently against.
3. Security - som... See more re: nationality:
1. No harm in it per se, but once again (as has been said, I think), it's an attribute of the person, not a competence level.
2. In threads where people raise questions because they have been asked to provide a passport number/scan, the advice is consistently "don't do it". Find out what the agency is trying to achieve and see if there is another method. It seems a bit perverse for the site to adopt a policy its users are consistently against.
3. Security - some of us still remember the security breach here a while back, when thousands of detail were copied to make a translator database. I would be twitchy about proz (or anyone) storing a copy of my passport permanently.
While I appreciate the long-term intention is to get everyone verified to the greatest extent possible, what happens meanwhile? Until the point is reached where the site can say "unverified = handle with extreme caution" (because they've had the time and manpower to check everyone who wants to be checked), what about those we 'stumble upon', as it were, who are never going to achieve that verification? (The ones this thread was about originally, basically.)
Indeed, what happens to those who fail verification in general? Are they left unverified, undistinguishable from those who haven't been through the process yet?
I'm not sure whether the prevailing attitude is that claiming a false "N" is a bit like the driving test, where the reward for passing is great, but there's no penalty for failure, or more akin to claiming to be a lawyer or doctor or policeman (albeit on an utterly different level of seriousness, not least because those are all regulated, to name but one key difference, but it's our approach or attitude I'm interested in) where being found out making a false claim is a pretty serious business, in the context of the website but not the world in general!.
Personally, I'd kick them off (same as I would for, e.g. falsely claiming qualifications), but I think we know that now
Edit to add: when I see this word "purge", I always think of mass deletions, with no prior warning. I'm not lobbying for that, although I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Give everybody fair warning (as we said ages ago, and as per Lisa's interim plan). If you get caught out after that, individually, for whatever reason (failed verification, client complaint, one of us busybodies comes across your profile by chance, etc.), with a due (if brief, of necessity) process, you go.
[Edited at 2012-07-21 19:23 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | no native language declared | Jul 21, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: ... While I appreciate the long-term intention is to get everyone verified to the greatest extent possible, what happens meanwhile? Until the point is reached where the site can say "unverified = handle with extreme caution" (because they've had the time and manpower to check everyone who wants to be checked), what about those we 'stumble upon', as it were, who are never going to achieve that verification? (The ones this thread was about originally, basically.) Indeed, what happens to those who fail verification in general? Are they left unverified, undistinguishable from those who haven't been through the process yet? ... Personally, I'd kick them off (same as I would for, e.g. falsely claiming qualifications), but I think we know that now
Suggestions:
Yes, I believe they shouldn't be able to continue on the site.
Or, at least: The ones who fail or the ones who don't get verified by a set deadline after they first registered can't display any language as "native language". They would get the sticker: no native language declared
B
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:24
Hebrew to English
| If it can be divorced from linguistic skills...... | Jul 21, 2012 |
septima wrote:
All in all, it's just one more item of info that may corroborate (or in its absence cast some doubt on) a native language claim, ALONG WITH the translator's demonstrable experience and presentation. And why shouldn't this information be there? After all, it's a matter of fact that may well be of interest to outsourcers, regardless of whether you feel it reflects on translators' linguistic skills.
Then it could be of some use. As septima pointed out it wouldn't necessarily have to be taken as a definite indicator of native language, but it would lend some weight to a person's native language status one way or the other. Obviously complex cases would warrant individual attention, but then I've not read another suggestion which wouldn't have to cater for the unusual cases.
I understand where septima is coming from, "native language" is a darned hard thing to prove as official fact, whereas nationality isn't.
However, Charlie is also right about data protection concerns, which throws a bit of a spanner in the works of this plan.
| | | | Suzan Hamer
Netherlands
Local time: 06:24
English
+ ...
| That's right. | Jul 21, 2012 |
Janet Rubin wrote:
Basically, the fact of the matter is that people can hold multiple nationalities for whatever reason (I do), which means that proving/verifying their nationality will really shed no light on their language abilities.
That's the first thing that came to mind when I read the suggestion.
My daughter, for instance, has 3 passports, can legally and truthfully claim 3 nationalities, and is, I hesitate to use the word, "native" in the languages of 2 of the countries (having heard both since the moment of her birth and spoken both since she could speak), but cannot speak more than 20 words or so of the language of the third. And I know there are many more cases like hers.
| | | | | National origen as a protected status | Jul 21, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: septima wrote:
All in all, it's just one more item of info that may corroborate (or in its absence cast some doubt on) a native language claim, ALONG WITH the translator's demonstrable experience and presentation. And why shouldn't this information be there? After all, it's a matter of fact that may well be of interest to outsourcers, regardless of whether you feel it reflects on translators' linguistic skills. Then it could be of some use. As septima pointed out it wouldn't necessarily have to be taken as a definite indicator of native language, but it would lend some weight to a person's native language status one way or the other. Obviously complex cases would warrant individual attention, but then I've not read another suggestion which wouldn't have to cater for the unusual cases. I understand where septima is coming from, "native language" is a darned hard thing to prove as official fact, whereas nationality isn't. However, Charlie is also right about data protection concerns, which throws a bit of a spanner in the works of this plan.
Further, in many nations, discrimination based on nationality is illegal. While this protection might not be applicable in this [ProZ] context, asking for nationality to select translators is not much different than asking for age, marital status, gender, sexual preference and other protected status.
| | | | | hmm and hmmm again | Jul 21, 2012 |
I for one will be consistent and not only be an official Proz-uncertified translator, but also an official Proz-uncertified native English speaker because I have no intention of sending a copy of either of my passports (UK and/or US) to any online website.
Also, as I said before, any child born in the US automatically receives (received?? -does this still apply?) US citizenship and therefore a US passport. Even if the family moves back to their country of origin, where the child is then ra... See more I for one will be consistent and not only be an official Proz-uncertified translator, but also an official Proz-uncertified native English speaker because I have no intention of sending a copy of either of my passports (UK and/or US) to any online website.
Also, as I said before, any child born in the US automatically receives (received?? -does this still apply?) US citizenship and therefore a US passport. Even if the family moves back to their country of origin, where the child is then raised and educated. If the same applies to other countries, then any verification of passports will be meaningless, as well as totally impractical.
In any case, as we have seen here, people are apparently willing to go to great lengths to sell themselves as natives of a language that isn't their actual native language. For every obstacle, it seems they will simply find a way around it.
Without secret-service like background/security checks, I don't see how Proz or any other site can stop people who are determined to find a way to lie about who they really are. Even the certified pro feature hasn't weeded them out.....
As someone said several pages back, the liars can sleep peacefully. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Most of those questions are illegal based on the American Constitution | Jul 21, 2012 |
I don't know where Proz is registered, and how the law treats international sites, but most, if not all of those questions proposed here as an alleged solution to a problem that does not really exist, are illegal, biased, and encroach on individual freedoms, being thus human rights violations.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 12:24
Chinese to English
| I don't think there are many determined fraudsters | Jul 21, 2012 |
writeaway wrote:
In any case, as we have seen here, people are apparently willing to go to great lengths to sell themselves as natives of a language that isn't their actual native language. For every obstacle, it seems they will simply find a way around it.
This is always going to be true, and it's a hard problem.
I think there is an easier problem as well: people who change/set their native language status just for convenience, because there are no controls on Proz.
This easier problem should be fairly solvable, and the passport thing might help.
@Bernhard & Janet
Those objections are valid if you see the passport suggestion as a direct response to the native language problem. It's not. It's a roundabout response to move toward a culture of less freedom to write whatever you want on your profile.
And patterns of migration work in our favour here. In my pair, for example, a translator is much more likely to claim English falsely than to claim Chinese falsely - and *some* of those who claim English falsely would be caught out by the passport check, because there are very very few native English speakers with Chinese passports.
However, Charlie's objection is more pertinent. Passports are more sensitive than degree certificates. If Proz isn't set up to handle the data, then it's not going to work.
| | | | | It could be (mis)understood as such | Jul 21, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
....
@Bernhard & Janet
Those objections are valid if you see the passport suggestion as a direct response to the native language problem. It's not. It's a roundabout response to move toward a culture of less freedom to write whatever you want on your profile. ...
Native Language: English (unverified) Italian (unverified)
Country of Citizenship: England (verified)
Country of Residence: England (verified)
You would have to add another category:
Country of Origin: Italy (verified) - Then you get closer to the truth.
Replace Italian/Italy with Chinese/China if you want.
In your case, Phil, the citizenship category would play in your favor. But that's because it's very unlikely an English translator will take on Chinese citizenship.
But you only claim one native language anyway.
B
[Edited at 2012-07-21 20:47 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
