| 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)
|
|---|
Michael Beijer 
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:19
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
| Just a thought. | Jul 23, 2012 |
How about we just drop this whole issue and instead focus on improving the ProZ.com Certified PRO Network? That way, if you want to prove you are who/what you say you are, you can get the little red badge or whatever it is and stick that next to your name. Clients requiring certainty could then just filter on translators that are members of the ProZ.com Certified PRO Network.
Michael
[Edited at 2012-07-23 17:09 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:19
Hebrew to English
| Emotive language alert! | Jul 23, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
That might be. Unless we have any Proz-wide figures, it is not very professional to make decisions about that. Nevertheless, the title of this topic is 'native language claims' not 'English native language clims', so we are crossing the bridge and we have come to it.
It might surprise you, but we are on a worldwide website and not on an English website. I don't know how big the problem is in French and Spanish.
There's no need to bring up professionalism (a bit below the belt there Kirsten!). There's nothing wrong with extrapolating based on what is quite obvious and numerous data (the sheer number of false English claims witnessed by me and other people on this site). And I didn't make a decision, I expressed an opinion (which was evidently not supported by data at the time, nor did it claim to be) so I fail to see how I overstepped the bounds of professionalism there. If there are more false claims of native German I'll eat my hat.
At any rate, Proz.com cannot start a policy only for English. Why? Because it cannot discriminate. If you start mandatory verification only for English native language claims, you are igoring all the other languages. That might even be illegal.
Why must you slap on a nice emotive word like "discriminate"? It's not discrimination at all, it's dealing with problems as and when they arise and as need be. Tell me, why should ProZ go to great lengths to find ways to root out false claims of Zulu when a) there probably aren't any and b) nobody has ever raised it as a concern. It's not about ignoring other languages, it's about dealing with the languages where there is a real problem (and No! Not just English!) And I almost guarantee, it won't be illegal (because it's not discrimination).
The only way you could tackle this is like the ATA and its counterparts, have everyone do an exam
No Kirsten, that's not the only way. Read the thread.
But then, as has also been said by someone else, such a scheme would mean that Proz would lose much of its fee-paying members, i.e. of its revenu [sic], and that's why nothing happens.
This is not a fact, it's an opinion. It has also been stated that it's entirely possible no such exodus would occur.
Tell me, how is it going to work?
I don't know, that's what this thread is all about!
That doesn't surprise me. It's called lateral thinking.
I can tell you what lateral thinking isn't. It isn't becoming so paralysed by endless hypothetical "what if"s that you end up doing nothing to solve a problem.
[Edited at 2012-07-23 22:28 GMT]
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 21:19
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Partial solution | Jul 23, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Let members/users declare one native language. If a member/user wants to declare a second native language, the burden of proof that the second native language claim is true should be borne by the member/user. Let him or her submit whatever evidence in support of the claim he or she wishes. Let the claim be evaluated by ProZ with the help of native speakers of the second declared language.
Well, it seems that most of those who have posted since I made this suggestion agree that it is (only) a partial solution.
A partial solution is better than no solution.
Implementation of the above suggestion would reduce the number of false native language claims. Specifically, it would address the problem of those falsely claiming more than one native language.
This would leave us with a different, smaller problem: false claims of one native language. We could then attempt to find ways to address that problem.
Often it is easier to solve a problem by breaking it down into smaller problems, and then attempting to solve each of those.
| | | | | It's not foolproof either | Jul 23, 2012 |
Michael Beijer wrote:
How about we just drop this whole issue and instead focus on improving the ProZ.com Certified PRO Network? That way, if you want to prove you are who/what you say you are, you can get the little red badge or whatever it is and stick that next to your name. Clients requiring certainty could then just filter on translators that are members of the ProZ.com Certified PRO Network.
Michael
[Edited at 2012-07-23 17:09 GMT]
The badge isn't foolproof and it shows that a person is considered by the powers that be 1) to be a good (site) citizen, 2) to be an adequate translator and 3) to have (site-approved) business reliability There are people there too who aren't listing their actual native language. The option for (potential) clients to select members of that network only has been in place for a long time.
The only people who can improve that network are the people in it and/or the people behind it. It's not a network open to the site as a whole. So it's a topic best left to a new forum discussion and has little to do with the discussion here.
| | |
|
|
|
| A partial solution that may become the full solution | Jul 23, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote: Michele Fauble wrote:
Let members/users declare one native language. If a member/user wants to declare a second native language, the burden of proof that the second native language claim is true should be borne by the member/user. Let him or her submit whatever evidence in support of the claim he or she wishes. Let the claim be evaluated by ProZ with the help of native speakers of the second declared language.
Well, it seems that most of those who have posted since I made this suggestion agree that it is (only) a partial solution. A partial solution is better than no solution. Implementation of the above suggestion would reduce the number of false native language claims. Specifically, it would address the problem of those falsely claiming more than one native language. This would leave us with a different, smaller problem: false claims of one native language. We could then attempt to find ways to address that problem. Often it is easier to solve a problem by breaking it down into smaller problems, and then attempting to solve each of those.
As I said earlier, when compliance with the law depends on self-declarations (income reporting for tax purposes, for example), the enforcing agency will resort to auditing. First, the agency audits obvious cheaters (a brain surgeon declaring an annual income of $10,000 or, in our case, a translator who has always lived in his or her native country (not an English-speaking country), the translator´s parents are also from that country, he or she was educated exclusively in that country, etc., etc., and the translator declares English to be his or her native language or one of them or, simply, his or her writing production is highly suspicious). Then, the agency audits at random, with a larger proportion of audited individuals coming from groups that are more likely to cheat, (for example, those members or users who declare that English is their native language, or one of them). Sanctions will be imposed, with their severity depending on the egregiousness of the misrepresentation, and which might range from temporary suspension from the directory to profile termination. I bet that whenever the system is implemented (even announced), many profiles will become all of a sudden very “honest”.
Just a thought,
Luis
| | | | | I just don't get why :-) | Jul 23, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
A partial solution is better than no solution.
As a rule of thumb, agreed. And as Ty said, not being able to do everything is no excuse to do nothing.
(I consider my own solution is under this umbrella, so I would say that, wouldn't I? )
Implementation of the above suggestion would reduce the number of false native language claims. Specifically, it would address the problem of those falsely claiming more than one native language.
This would leave us with a different, smaller problem: false claims of one native language. We could then attempt to find ways to address that problem.
This is what I don't get. The fundamental problem is the same, surely: people lying about native languages. Surely the solution is the same, if the problem is identical ....??
Often it is easier to solve a problem by breaking it down into smaller problems, and then attempting to solve each of those.
Also true as a rule of thumb, but we should be prepared to re-assess the situation if analysis shows 2 sub-problems are, in fact, one and the same problem.
Is it just that you think the level of work involved necessitates a piecemeal solution, or do you really envisage 2 different solutions (e.g. different verification processes, different sanctions, etc.)?
[/quote]
| | | | | let them speak their native language | Jul 23, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Let members/users declare one native language.
First, even if you only "declare" one language, you should have to answer a few questions before you get an "N" icon. Anybody can "declare" a native langauge.
But somebody who answers questions that clearly show where he/she was born, went to school and where they resid(ed) should have no problem getting an "N" icon for ONE native language, even though I suggest to make it "unverified" at first until his/her identity is confirmed.
Those answers could be part of the declaration process. You simply answer them before your native language will be displayed. Proz.com will not come to your house and check you out.
Michele Fauble wrote:
If a member/user wants to declare a second native language, the burden of proof that the second native language claim is true should be borne by the member/user. Let him or her submit whatever evidence in support of the claim he or she wishes. Let the claim be evaluated by ProZ with the help of native speakers of the second declared language.
Evidence?
I say let's "hear" them speak the language. At a Powwow, in a video conference with peers who are trusted native speakers.
This solution will appeal to the "true" native speakers, giving them a chance to distance themselves clearly from non-native speakers. It will deter "non-natives".
In addition, I have no problem with translators wanting to declare two or more native languages. Temporarily, they could get the greyed-out icons but for a very limited time. After a certain time, they must verify their native languages or lose their right to display (any) native languages. (= no native language declared).
Let's keep it simple.
B
[Edited at 2012-07-23 23:26 GMT]
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 21:19
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
Charlie Bavington wrote: Surely the solution is the same, if the problem is identical ....??
Not necessarily. If you've got a lot of nuts to crack, and you have a tool to crack most of them, then you use that tool for those nuts. Then find a tool to crack the others. Even if you don't find such a tool, you've still at least got a lot of nuts out of their shells.
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Is it just that you think the level of work involved necessitates a piecemeal solution, or do you really envisage 2 different solutions (e.g. different verification processes, different sanctions, etc.)?
If it is easier to use two different tools to solve a problem, use two different tools.
[Edited at 2012-07-23 22:52 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote: Surely the solution is the same, if the problem is identical ....?? Not necessarily. If you've got a lot of nuts to crack, and you have a tool to crack most of them, then you use that tool for those nuts. Then find a tool to crack the others. You may not find such a tool, but at least you've still got a lot of nuts out of their shells.
Then the problem you have is not identical.
Do we have a situation here where we have just one kind of nut, or several?
In terms of the problem we are facing?
I should confess, I see just one fundamental problem. One type of nut, as it were. Misrepresentation of language skills. I'm not sure I see any difference, when push comes to shove, whether the person has declared one or two languages. If the only one declared, or either one declared, or indeed both is/are suspected to be untrue, then the process to establish that ought to be the same process, in my view.
FWIW, I liked your idea of the tests with phrases that may or may not contain errors, although my preference is still for an analysis of the output that led to the claimed language being challenged in the first place. Not that I'm trying to weedle you into my point of view, or anything.
| | | | JKalina
Local time: 06:19
English to Macedonian
+ ...
Hi, everybody,
I’m new here, but I’ve been drawn to your discussion for three days now and I’m really curious about one thing: why is this so important to you?
Before some of you remind me that this question has been asked and answered several times, I’d like to clarify that I’m not implying it’s a non-issue; I’m honestly curious for the simple reason that I can’t quite relate.
First of all, I come from a small developing country with a popu... See more Hi, everybody,
I’m new here, but I’ve been drawn to your discussion for three days now and I’m really curious about one thing: why is this so important to you?
Before some of you remind me that this question has been asked and answered several times, I’d like to clarify that I’m not implying it’s a non-issue; I’m honestly curious for the simple reason that I can’t quite relate.
First of all, I come from a small developing country with a population of 2 million (or, as an English friend of mine once said, ‘twelve blokes and a goat’). So I cannot imagine anyone fraudulently claiming my mother tongue as their own, and for financial gain at that. If they did, I’d give them a biscuit and a cuddle since they obviously had a bad day.I also can’t imagine ever getting a job through this site because I could hardly compete, for a number of reasons.
That being said, I’m really interested to hear why the proponents of verification are so bothered by all this. I can’t see an incompetent fraudster’s false claim affecting you or any other articulate, qualified and experienced native speakers job-wise. So, what’s the problem? Is it an emotional issue? Do you feel violated in some way? (I do apologize for the dramatic turn of phrase: language and identity are burning issues in my country, but in a very different sense – they’re both being questioned.)
Once again, I can’t stress enough that I’m merely trying to understand where you’re coming from. So, please, be gentle...
Kalina ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 12:19
Chinese to English
| No snitching, so purely for manpower reasons | Jul 24, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
If the only one declared, or either one declared, or indeed both is/are suspected to be untrue, then the process to establish that ought to be the same process, in my view.
FWIW, I liked your idea of the tests with phrases that may or may not contain errors, although my preference is still for an analysis of the output that led to the claimed language being challenged in the first place. Not that I'm trying to weedle you into my point of view, or anything.
You're right, of course.
The reason for targeting the two language people was purely a manpower issue. As I see it, no snitching system can be implemented, so there has to be a positive testing system. For the xty thousand members of Proz, that's a lot of work.
(problems with snitching: no system is working now, despite what Jared said; any system that has no outward manifestation - just emailing the staff - is too icky; any system that manifests itself on the site - e.g. an "is this translator a big fat liar" button - is going to send the wrong message, and the results will include a certain level of noise, so you get into some quite difficult statistics)
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 06:19
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Bernhard (on how to force people to get verified) | Jul 24, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
[If] translators ... declare two or more native languages... Temporarily, they could get the greyed-out icons but for a very limited time. After a certain time, they must verify their native languages or lose their right to display (any) native languages. (= no native language declared).
I would also have no objection to this method of coercing members to get verified (or at least to answer any pre-verification questions that is tied to the native language declaration). To pipe up at what Bernhard says: anyone who declares more than one native language is given 3 months to answer the questions related to it (or to get verified), and when that time expires, the native languages on their profile is replaced with a notice saying "Translator has declared native languages, but hasn't verified them yet".
I would also have no objection if a similar thing is done to current yellow-icon translators. In other words, if they don't start the verification process within 3 months, their icons turn grey.
==
Oh, here's another variation on what has been suggested:
Let translators say why they regard a language to be their native language, using a freeform comment field with a character limitation. When the user fills in this form, example sentences are shown of common reasons why a language is considered native, so that the user can simply copy those or adapt it. Then, on the user's profile page, the titleText of the icon next to the declared native language includes the user's reason. In other words, if a visitor hovers his mouse over the icon, he will see the member's reasons in a tooltip.
To make this more effective, add the words "(declared)", "(verified)" or "(not verified)" after each language on the profile page, and if the user had filled in the comment field with a reason, let his label be "declared" and let the label have a tooltiup with the member's reasons in it.
[Edited at 2012-07-24 07:40 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| cracking the nuts | Jul 24, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
If the only one declared, or either one declared, or indeed both is/are suspected to be untrue, then the process to establish that ought to be the same process, in my view.
You're right, of course. The reason for targeting the two language people was purely a manpower issue.
Well, I prompted Michele to confirm that was, in fact, what she meant, and then she started talking about nuts. So even people who appear to be agreeing on a point in fact do not agree about why they have reached that point and, therefore, it is also unlikely you would initially agree on your response to it.
You don't need me to point out the massive flaws in a solution that is known to be targeted at onky one group of offenders (i.e. that offenders will just make sure they're not in the target group).
As I see it, no snitching system can be implemented, so there has to be a positive testing system. For the xty thousand members of Proz, that's a lot of work.
(problems with snitching: no system is working now, despite what Jared said; any system that has no outward manifestation - just emailing the staff - is too icky; any system that manifests itself on the site - e.g. an "is this translator a big fat liar" button - is going to send the wrong message, and the results will include a certain level of noise, so you get into some quite difficult statistics)
Now here is where I'm with you on the manpower issue but have reached an opposite conclusion.
While universal positive testing is (as I agreed days/weeks ago) the ideal solution, I don't see this place as having the will to see it through. They may or may not have the money to acquire the resources, we don't know. But I suspect that even if they did, they wouldn't spend it on this.
I also entirely disagree with the way every proponent of universal testing thus far has failed to propose a single option in the event of failing the test. Everyone seems to be either verified or non-verified, and, er.. that's it. And non-verified = not yet taken or failed. Once the system were truly universal, that might be enough. In the early days... not so sure. So IMHO, universal positive testing has a further drawback in that there is a transition period presenting other problems that would either require another termporary solution or simply be tolerated while still in fact enabking the very problem you set out to solve - and this process of yours might take literally years to complete...
I fully accept your points about a challenge system. I agree about the lack of transparency. I disagree about the effect of a challenge button - indeed, one could argue the effect might be beneficial, in that the website with the scuzziest reputation of all translator websites would be publicly demonstrating its wish to act on this particular issue.
Except, of course, it has no wish to act on the issue.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:19
Hebrew to English
JKalina wrote:
I’m new here, but I’ve been drawn to your discussion for three days now and I’m really curious about one thing: why is this so important to you?
Hello Kalina,
I can only speak for myself, but I'll give a few reasons:
1. Because it's against site rules (http://www.proz.com/siterules/general/6#6). All other site rules are enforced with German-like efficiency, this particular rule is swept under the carpet like a Greek tax bill.
2. There is an emotional connection; there's no point in denying that. Anyone would be peeved if it were their language being claimed as native by half the planet, many of whom haven't even begun to master it, much less reach a native-live level even.
3. This one's important: it's not that we're saying you can't translate into English. That's fine...but you don't have to claim to be native in it if it's not true, you can still translate into it without lying (even if you really shouldn't be translating into it because you lack even the basics).
4. Professionalism. It's not professional to deceive your clientele (even to get work).
5. Being sullied by association. We are all users of this site, but some of don't want to get dragged into the gutter by the actions of others who would harm the reputation of this site and then by proxy - us.
6. Did I mention that lying is bad?
I'm sure there are other reasons, it certainly isn't borne out of fear of losing jobs (chances are we're in different markets anyway) or even competition (for the same reason).
[Edited at 2012-07-24 10:29 GMT]
| | | | JKalina
Local time: 06:19
English to Macedonian
+ ...
| I'm not sure when my post will actually appear, but... | Jul 24, 2012 |
Thanks, Ty.
I might not fully understand yet, but I do get most of it.
I wouldn't want you to think I was condoning lying. As you might've noticed, I've only claimed Macedonian as my N. I wouldn't dare add anything else, even Serbian - which I was exposed to at the same time as my mother tongue because it was the official language of the f... See more Thanks, Ty.
I might not fully understand yet, but I do get most of it.
I wouldn't want you to think I was condoning lying. As you might've noticed, I've only claimed Macedonian as my N. I wouldn't dare add anything else, even Serbian - which I was exposed to at the same time as my mother tongue because it was the official language of the federation my country was part of the first 10 years of my life and I have continually used, read, spoken, listened to to this day - let alone English. Or Italian, for that matter.
Now, I might be very naive here, but isn't this misrepresentation hurting the liar more than anyone else? It might hurt a client or two, but there's an easy way around that: test the prospective hire (as I believe some agencies do). They like what they see on paper, so, just to make sure, they ask the candidate to translate a short sample. As all of you said, it doesn't take much to spot a fake. That could be deterrent enough: if a simple claim of nativeness doesn't automatically get you the job, but you have to prove yourself to potential clients, I'd imagine the whole thing becomes too much of a hassle (since I'm guessing that falsely claiming a language as your mother tongue is supposed to be a shortcut to getting gigs). Plus, if the agency/outsourcer then complains to the site that so-and-so might be misrepresenting themselves, it does away with the need for peer snitching completely.
The emotional aspect I fully understand. I've noticed that even English teachers and translators in my country take the whole everybody-knows-English idea to heart. (I'm only mentioning English because it's a language I've had experience with.) I can't even imagine what it's like for an actual native speaker. And, for similar reasons, we often find ourselves 'sullied by association' locally: all translators are labelled bad because of the cheap inferior product churned out by non-professionals or even solicited by clients ('correcting' our work as they see fit, for instance). A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing... That's at least part of the issue here. Or am I wrong?
Thanks again, Ty. I'll keep reading you guys, although I'm not sure how much I'll be able to contribute. Especially since my posts might take a while ...
Kalina
[Edited at 2012-07-24 12:07 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-07-24 12:15 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | 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? | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
