| 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)
|
|---|
Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 23:02
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Why people lie | Aug 6, 2012 |
Janet Rubin wrote:
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT WHY PEOPLE LIE.
Discussing why people lie is useful for finding ways to prevent people from lying... which is what this thread most definitely is about. Don't you agree?
| | | | | Related issues? | Aug 6, 2012 |
Janet Rubin wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
No one is arguing that all those who are proficient in a language are also native in that language.
As far as I can tell, Lilian did just that, and some of your arguments seem to be very close to some of hers. If you want to argue that those "proficient" with a language are justified in translating into that language, that is a perfectly valid discussion to enter into - just NOT IN THIS THREAD.
All hangs together, I think. I suspect many of those claiming native languages do so precisely because they view it as a label of their proficiency, rather than a linguistic attribute. Given the presumed objective of promoting oneself as a native speaker, I can see why that happens. The only issue, and the point of this thread, is when people are mistaken as to their proficiency level, and they call themselves "native", equating it with "super-expert level" or something along those lines, when the evidence is that they are nowhere near it.
| | | |
It is so sad that a troll is able to make people who broadly agree with each other and are on the same "side" discuss and argue the same things we actually had covered over and over again as if we were not the same opinion... this troll is really a good one.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:02
Hebrew to English
| Except we've discussed this I'm sure | Aug 6, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Janet Rubin wrote:
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT WHY PEOPLE LIE. Discussing why people lie is useful for finding ways to prevent people from lying... which is what this thread most definitely is about. Don't you agree?
Ad nauseum, probably about 50 pages back. I agree that it's important to identify why a problem occurs, but if you spend all your time and energy dwelling on the "whys" you never get around to discussing the "hows" of solving the problem.
This is the issue we have here, there are people who want us to stick to the whys indefinitely because then we'll never get anywhere with the hows.
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 23:02
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Ty Kendall wrote:
This is the issue we have here, there are people who want us to stick to the whys indefinitely because then we'll never get anywhere with the hows.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the hows been discussed already as well? Then what comes next?
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 05:02
Chinese to English
| Not what Proz does | Aug 6, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
And why do they think it's relevant?
Because it is an indication of expected quality of output.
But it doesn't guarantee it ...
So you have a situation where you wish to accurately ascribe an attribute (nativeness) to individuals for the purpose of indicating their likely performance level, and you plan to decide on ascribing that attribute by measuring the same kind of performance which is the sole point of ascribing the attribute in the first place. Slightly circular logic, no?
Stick to measuring performance (competence of output) and be done with it.
No, Charlie, this is impossible. It is not and can never be Proz's job to say how good we are. That's the job of agencies.
It's not accurate to say "you wish to accurately ascribe an attribute (nativeness)" because it's not "us" who are driving this. It's the clients, the agencies, and everyone else in the industry. The quotes from the ATA, IoL and whoever else have already been given in the thread. A few posts back I went and tallied up current jobs in my pair - 14 out of 19 clients included a native language requirement in their job request.
It's not Proz's place to interpret those requirements or reinvent them as quality measures. Nativeness is a (fairly) objective criterion which many clients, for reasons best known to themselves, apply in their outsourcing. Proz's only role is to (a) reject that criterion entirely, as Lilian and B.L. suggest; or to (b) work that criterion as best they can.
| | | | | Ignoring the troll! | Aug 6, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the hows been discussed already as well? Then what comes next?
To me it is perfectly clear: ignoring the troll and don´t letting him revive issues we already discussed. It´s not helping at all bringing up again and again the same issues we already covered and asking ourselves the same things over and over. We had it all, right?
What about really ignoring the trolls? Really. Don´t talk to them anymore, no matter what they still may have to say. They don´t (want to) understand the very topic of this thread. We are not going to change their minds the same way they are not going to convince anybody. Please, don´t let them disturb our discussion.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 05:02
Chinese to English
Samuel Murray wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the hows been discussed already as well? Then what comes next?
Hopefully, consensus, then action. We need to change Jared's mind.
| | |
|
|
|
Janet Rubin wrote:
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT WHY PEOPLE LIE.
That was suitably addressed for the tangent it is - some 40-50 pages back - also by myself, if I may point that out AGAIN. It is a closed issue. People here are done discussing it.
Samuel Murray wrote:
Discussing why people lie is useful for finding ways to prevent people from lying... which is what this thread most definitely is about. Don't you agree?
To be quite honest, I don't agree. I agree that why people lie is a TANGENT to this topic, and it was discussed - by ME. A few people responded, and that was that.
EVEN AFTER BRINGING IT UP MYSELF, I do not feel that this is central to what THIS thread is about or that it deserves more "air time". Any measure(s) eliminating the "why" (= so-called "need" to lie) should be ADDRESSED IN A SEPARATE THREAD.
That is how *I* feel.
If people want to vote "NO" in response to the original question(s) - that is, if they believe we shouldn't do something about people lying about their native language because we shouldn't have a place for claiming native language in the first place, they should simply say "I vote NO" - and move the rest of the arguments to another thread.
That is how *I* feel.
Nani Delgado wrote:
It is so sad that a troll is able to make people who broadly agree with each other and are on the same "side" discuss and argue the same things we actually had covered over and over again as if we were not the same opinion... this troll is really a good one.
AMEN, Sister!
| | | | | Agree with Phil | Aug 6, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
Stick to measuring performance (competence of output) and be done with it. No, Charlie, this is impossible. It is not and can never be Proz's job to say how good we are. That's the job of agencies. [ Janet: or may I say, clients, the market, etc.J] ... ... because it's not "us" who are driving this. It's the clients, the agencies, and everyone else in the industry. The quotes from the ATA, IoL and whoever else have already been given in the thread. ... It's not Proz's place to interpret those requirements or reinvent them as quality measures. Nativeness is a (fairly) objective criterion which many clients, for reasons best known to themselves, apply in their outsourcing. [ emphasis added:] Proz's only role is to (a) reject that criterion entirely, as Lilian and B.L. suggest; or to (b) work that criterion as best they can.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:02
Hebrew to English
Samuel Murray wrote: Ty Kendall wrote:
This is the issue we have here, there are people who want us to stick to the whys indefinitely because then we'll never get anywhere with the hows. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the hows been discussed already as well? Then what comes next?
I think the hows are still being discussed, the hows after all are the nitty gritty of the entire question. The hows were always going to be the most contentious point....just how can we go about verifying native languages....there have been more than a few suggestions, but little consensus on the best route....which would suggest further discussion on the hows might be warranted...
Also, returning to the whys can sometimes yield valuable insights forgotten, but not when it is only done for the sake of derailment or obfuscation.
On what comes after.....if we ever do come to a general agreement on a good "how" then the next part of the discussion would be the "whens and wheres" it can/could/should/would be implemented.
I seriously doubt we will ever get there though, disappointingly.
| | | | psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 23:02
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
|
|
|
| Thank you psicutrinius | Aug 6, 2012 |
[Deleted rest of post, something funky happened here!]
[Edited at 2012-08-06 10:48 GMT]
| | | | | Take a step back, then | Aug 6, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
And why do they think it's relevant?
Because it is an indication of expected quality of output.
But it doesn't guarantee it ...
So you have a situation where you wish to accurately ascribe an attribute (nativeness) to individuals for the purpose of indicating their likely performance level, and you plan to decide on ascribing that attribute by measuring the same kind of performance which is the sole point of ascribing the attribute in the first place. Slightly circular logic, no?
Stick to measuring performance (competence of output) and be done with it. No, Charlie, this is impossible. It is not and can never be Proz's job to say how good we are. That's the job of agencies. It's not accurate to say "you wish to accurately ascribe an attribute (nativeness)" because it's not "us" who are driving this. It's the clients, the agencies, and everyone else in the industry. The quotes from the ATA, IoL and whoever else have already been given in the thread. A few posts back I went and tallied up current jobs in my pair - 14 out of 19 clients included a native language requirement in their job request. It's not Proz's place to interpret those requirements or reinvent them as quality measures. Nativeness is a (fairly) objective criterion which many clients, for reasons best known to themselves, apply in their outsourcing. Proz's only role is to (a) reject that criterion entirely, as Lilian and B.L. suggest; or to (b) work that criterion as best they can.
"You wish...." was lazy; I probably should have said "it is wished to ascribe....."
Instead of jumping in there with the "...for reasons best known to themselves" remark, it might be useful to (collectively) consider why that is. Oh Lord, someone else asking "why". Will this torment never end? We just want to do something, anything.....
Lest there be any confusion, this is still nothing to do with translation per se. So I'm not sure where the "never be Proz's job to say how good we are" remark comes from because this thread has been entirely about how good people are.
(I'm assuming "good" here is not a moral judgement, but a proficiency level )
People not being good enough at writing to claim native status is where this all started. Testing and verification of native language are, in the context of this thread, solely about how good people are. And in the broader scheme of things, to be honest, NOT caring about quality measures is precisely why this website is in the mire it is in. What, exactly, would be wrong if proz DID (re)define native as a quality measure (I happen to believe that, in fact, a quality measure is what native is designed to imply).
Given that nativeness is a can of worms of such size, I would suggest that the idea of focussing on output, not the attribute itself, is precisely an effort towards "(b) work that criterion as best they can", as well as being an approach that restricts the scope of the problem to one that can actually be fixed.
| | | | | Native vs. non-native errors | Aug 6, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Given that nativeness is a can of worms of such size, I would suggest that the idea of focussing on output, not the attribute itself, is precisely an effort towards "(b) work that criterion as best they can"...
Can we presume from this that you are talking about applying some method of assessing error rate and quality of errors, such as in a timed essay or chat ("output" not= "translation")? Or would you care to elaborate in your own words?
| | | | | 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? | 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 
