| 话题中的页数: < [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? 论题张贴者: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
| Could be a good plan, if... | Jun 25, 2012 |
Jared wrote: Hi Robert, Robert Forstag wrote:
The consensus here is that some general policy regarding the issue is expected, and not simply a general invitation to report fraud. (We would have to first define what "fraud" is, and that is where some general stand on the part of this site is so desperately needed).
In reporting abuse, it is a good idea to rely on http://www.proz.com/rules/ as a guideline. It is not always easy or simple to decide whether a site rule has been violated, but that is what staff do. If you feel a rule may have been violated, the best thing to do is report it.
Furthermore, given that a statement was posted some years ago by the site regarding an intent to "study the issue," it would seem reasonable that high priority be assigned to the issue now. Your vagueness in this respect is not reassuring.
[Edited at 2012-06-25 14:41 GMT]
Sorry I cannot be less vague at the moment. Without going into the issue of whether something has a high priority, how the priority gets set, etc., I can say that matters such as this do take a good amount of time, study and planning, considering potential impact (positive and negative) before an implementation materializes. The downside of this is that one may assume that nothing is being done when one does not see visible results yet. Jared
Hi Jared,
The plain sense of what you've written here would suggest that the site is prepared to remove fraudulent native claims from the profiles of site user/members. Even applying conservative criteria as to establishing that such fraud is being perpetrated, this could involve hundreds of cases.
If the site is truly ready to take action in this way, then I applaud the initiative. I would even say that such a system of reporting and response may be all that is needed to address the issue.
If, however, the response to such reports will invariably be something along the lines of "We have investigated the matter and have found X's conduct with respect to reporting his/her native language to not be in violation of site rules," then the invitation to submit these kinds of support requests will have been shown to be nothing more than a farce.
[Edited at 2012-06-25 16:01 GMT]
| | | | | Don't put words into my mouth, now | Jun 25, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: Kirsten Bodart wrote:
but what if outsourcers are looking for a native speaker? Then they still land with a possibly bad translator, who is maybe verified native, but is still incompetent.
How does it follow that a native speaker is incompetent? No chance at all of the non-native being so? There's no logic in that argument. In any event, I reiterate we're not talking about translation skill here, we're talking about being truthful about one's native language.
Don't put words into my mouth. In some cases a non-native translator can be more competent than a native one (as Annamaria has pointed out earlier). Your native may be native and nothing more and may not have a clue about the rest, not even make an adequate translation. Where are you then with your merits?
Essentially you are not really arguing about only being truthful about native language at all, because a Joseph Conrad would obviously qualify for native, although his native languages were Polish and French (I don't know that would qualify). You are talking about people supplying translations in languages they are not native in where that is absolutely blatant. That is something totally different. That is what I am addressing.
There is logic to the argument above. It is just a way of pointing out that tackling this issue is essentially not going to do anything major to the industry, because people either like it that way or they don't care about it at all.
I think we already established a few pages back that there ain't no Conrads here. Let's stop dwelling on exceptions.
So we should stop dwelling on exceptions. OK, although the exceptions are also subject to the rule. That is my point. In suggesting something like this you need to be absolutely sure what it is you are after, which no-one is. That is my point. Stop pretending that there is a clear line.
An outsourcer may not speak the source, target or either. That's why.
And an outsourcer might not know the subject and unwittingly deliver an abysmal translation to his client. His client would maybe not notice either until his clients press charges.
Is that fair?
And how should we check that?
I tell you, I think that does more damage to the industry than the native thing.
If you are not looking at suspending the Joseph Conrads amongst us, then I am not confident how many Dutch there would be who don't qualify for the tag.
Again, where is the line?
[Edited at 2012-06-25 17:32 GMT]
| | | | XXXphxxx (X) 
英国
Local time: 21:10
Portuguese葡萄牙语译成English英语
+ ...
主题发起人
I'm not ignoring you, I would reply if I could but, without wishing to be facetious, I don't understand much of what you've said. Perhaps I'm not an English native speaker after all...
| | | |
Nobody here is proposing to suspend the Joseph Conrads amongst us. Furthermore, I share your lack of confidence in how many Dutch there would be who don't qualify for the tag. We must keep looking for the line
Regards
AJS
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
中国大陆
Local time: 04:10
Chinese汉语译成English英语
| At this point, you're being absurd | Jun 25, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
If you are not looking at suspending the Joseph Conrads amongst us, then I am not confident how many Dutch there would be who don't qualify for the tag.
You think that the vast majority of Dutch Proz members have perfect English language skills?
That's just an empirical question. Go and have a look. If you want directions to some egregious examples, I believe some of my colleagues on this thread would be willing to help you out.
| | | | | Dutch cowboys/cowgirls | Jun 26, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
You think that the vast majority of Dutch Proz members have perfect English language skills?
That's just an empirical question. Go and have a look. If you want directions to some egregious examples, I believe some of my colleagues on this thread would be willing to help you out.
At your service, Phil:
Shopaholics can eat their hart out in Scheveningen. The boulevard offers the most touristic kind of shops. Whilst the Palace Promenade and the Keizerstraat gives a wider shopping selection. Do realize that the prices might be slightly higher on the boulevard then in the regular shops. Grab that shopping bag and shop till you drop!
In March a huge transformation takes place on the beach. More than 35 beach clubs are build up and give a completely different view of the coast. All beach clubs are made ready for the rest of the summer season. Make sure to stroll alongside the boulevard to find you ideal beach club. More than enough choice. All beach clubs open around 12:00 and close at 00:30. Check out below the hottest beach clubs Scheveningen has to offer.
City pier city run - if you like running go to the city pier city run is your event to attend. You run from the city to the pier (dock) and back again. Experienced runners should only try to attempt this run.
http://scheveningenbeach.com/en
| | | | | No doubt you are native speaker, but you don't think very far | Jun 26, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
I'm not ignoring you, I would reply if I could but, without wishing to be facetious, I don't understand much of what you've said. Perhaps I'm not an English native speaker after all...
If you do not understad what I am saying, then you don't think very far.
I merely said that you were not arguing for members to 'be honest about [their] native language[s]', as you claim, because you would concede that a hypothetical person like Joseph Conrad has native proficiency and that therefore he would be granted the 'verified native' tag, although such a person would have another native language.
So essentially, you are not arguing that this is about 'native language' per se, but native proficiency. So you would need serious vetting to be able to vet all those who do have a good grasp of their second 'native' language and who would necessarily also be subject to the vetting rule, just like those who miss artcles and such.
If you can't see what I am referring to, then you just don't think about the consequences of what you are proposing.
That is the only thing I wanted to point out.
| | | |
OK, so the first practically self-confessed bogus claim has arisen, unsought, this morning
A thread by someone claiming to be a native, asking for natives to check her grammar, which is indeed slightly faulty, for CV. Her profile claims native English. Seems a cut-and-dried case to me (by the definition I posted yesterday). I am allowed to report it now?
| | |
|
|
|
I think so. We are not only allowed to report abuse to staff, we were asked yesterday to do so:
Jared wrote:
If you suspect fraud or any other violation of site rules, as always, please submit the details to site staff using the online support system so that they can be looked into and acted on if need be.
Jared
If someone is claiming to be a native and this person isn´t native, then he/she is acting against site rules:
http://www.proz.com/siterules/general/6#6
| | | |
Phil Hand wrote: Kirsten Bodart wrote:
If you are not looking at suspending the Joseph Conrads amongst us, then I am not confident how many Dutch there would be who don't qualify for the tag. You think that the vast majority of Dutch Proz members have perfect English language skills? That's just an empirical question. Go and have a look. If you want directions to some egregious examples, I believe some of my colleagues on this thread would be willing to help you out.
I am sure there are pretty horrendous examples, yes, but there are surely others. They are also part of this, you know.
Again, how are you going to do this?
If someone were to write a fully correct text in terms of grammar, would that be enough?
No, obviously.
If someone were to write a fully correct text as above, and without vocabulary mistakes, would that be enough?
Yes or no? And what are such mistakes? In register and style? Fine.
Who is going to determine that such mistakes definitely exist? Peers? And based on what? Are they going to do this for free?
You can easily spot those who do not have enough of a grasp, but you never know, in some fields they may be as good as it gets. Who knows. Proficiency is fluid, not static.
Another thought: how many new members are joining Proz each day? This doesn't take into account the backlog the website would have to clear. What if I want to challenge the verdict?
You would need a whole structure like the ATA and other organisations to be able to cope with this, on top of a set of people in every pair to judge these things. Are they available in absolutely every pair? Are they qualified? In the Dutch pair (for the verification of Dutch I mean), most translators have qualifications, so everyone could easily vote on native language or not. Yet there is no qualification in Flemish, because it is not a language (despite what other countries may think).
In English I am not so sure. Who would be able to vote? Only those with degrees in linguistics or something? And what about Welsh and Gaelic? There are some members around, I believe, with both English and Welsh/Gaelic as native. Should their Welsh/Gaelic be verified?
Don't say that is not relevant, because that is how far such verification would stretch. This is not only about English (although it seems that way).
| | | | | Native proficiency is one thing, being a native speaker is something else | Jun 26, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote: Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
I'm not ignoring you, I would reply if I could but, without wishing to be facetious, I don't understand much of what you've said. Perhaps I'm not an English native speaker after all... If you do not understad what I am saying, then you don't think very far. I merely said that you were not arguing for members to 'be honest about [their] native language[s]', as you claim, because you would concede that a hypothetical person like Joseph Conrad has native proficiency and that therefore he would be granted the 'verified native' tag, although such a person would have another native language. So essentially, you are not arguing that this is about 'native language' per se, but native proficiency. So you would need serious vetting to be able to vet all those who do have a good grasp of their second 'native' language and who would necessarily also be subject to the vetting rule, just like those who miss artcles and such. If you can't see what I am referring to, then you just don't think about the consequences of what you are proposing. That is the only thing I wanted to point out.
A native speaker is just that. Either one is a native speaker of a language or one isn't. It's not something that can be added on at random because one feels they are as good as or even better than people who are genuine native speakers.
No one is saying people can't claim native proficiency. The 'About Me' space on the profile page offers every opportunity for that.
Lots of us have been living in foreign languages for years and speak them fluently. Being able to write them (at a professional level) is another thing altogether.
And fwiw, English has LOTS of rules. Really it does........ Written English in particular. That's where the rules really matter. Many non-natives who cheerfully claim to be EN native speakers seem to be blissfully unaware of this fact. Which may explain why verb tenses, syntax, definite/indefinite articles, prepositions etc. give them away as soon as they start writing...
| | | |
writeaway wrote:
A native speaker is just that. Either one is a native speaker of a language or one isn't. ..... native proficiency..... able to write them (at a professional level)
Seems to be a sticking point, in general, partly at least a semantic discussion, hence Samuel's thread I guess.
Given we are apparently now allowed to report obvious examples, at least, why don't we just start the clean-up with, oh, say, the sort of people who claim native English but still balls up the articles, and worry about the rarer and borderline cases if and when proz starts to live up to its name a bit more?
| | |
|
|
|
| To whom are these people a threat? | Jun 26, 2012 |
I don't feel threatened by non-natives with claims to nativeness. All the agencies I work for employ native speakers like you and I who can spot bogus native speakers a mile away. Those that get through assumedly do so because they really do write the target well, and so good for them. I guess I'm in a position of luxury living in an economy that is prepared to pay translators a reasonable rate, because that's the best way to separate the wheat from the chaff, I suppose.
| | | | | Notes on the seriousness of initiating an investigation of abuse and how to do it | Jun 26, 2012 |
It would appear that I could have been clearer in my explanation of this earlier in this thread.
A site FAQ, http://www.proz.com/faq/2401#2401 , explains what the different native speaker icons represent. Note that the black and grey icon "is used to represent native languages that have been reported, but not confirmed." Now, a profile may display two of these black and grey icons when two ... See more It would appear that I could have been clearer in my explanation of this earlier in this thread.
A site FAQ, http://www.proz.com/faq/2401#2401 , explains what the different native speaker icons represent. Note that the black and grey icon "is used to represent native languages that have been reported, but not confirmed." Now, a profile may display two of these black and grey icons when two languages have been reported. "Members who report multiple native languages will in the future be asked to demonstrate their native speech in each language before other native speakers of those languages. Until this has been accomplished, a black and gray icon will be associated with the unconfirmed native languages." (see http://www.proz.com/faq/2380#2380 )
Among the improvements being planned that I mentioned earlier would be this, the means to allow members who report more than one language to demonstrate their ability in order to have those languages confirmed. While it sounds simple in theory, in practice it is not yet so; care needs to be taken in defining what is evaluated and how, as I think can be seen in the discussions running on the matter in three separate forum threads at the moment. It would be reasonable to expect that this system of verification will not be compulsory; rather, members will have access to the opportunity to confirm those languages and differentiate themselves from those who have not (much in the way credential or identity verification works, and many other opportunities on the site).
I would ask that reports of abuse take these factors into account where possible, be submitted with serious intent, and be accompanied with supporting evidence (as opposed to simply asking that X, Y an Z persons be checked out). Each investigation of a report of abuse takes a serious amount of time and energy to carry out responsibly, so ensuring that reports are also submitted properly is important.
Jared ▲ Collapse
| | | | | I agree with this... | Jun 26, 2012 |
Olly Pekelharing wrote:
I don't feel threatened by non-natives with claims to nativeness. All the agencies I work for employ native speakers like you and I who can spot bogus native speakers a mile away. Those that get through assumedly do so because they really do write the target well, and so good for them. I guess I'm in a position of luxury living in an economy that is prepared to pay translators a reasonable rate, because that's the best way to separate the wheat from the chaff, I suppose.
and also, it will be impossible to verify/police effectively... anyway, if you translate into your non-native language and you are not good enough, you will eventually pay the price for this. As far as being dishonest about your own native language, many translators truly believe that they are bilingual or have near-native command of their second/passive language. How do we treat these cases? All in all, it would just a waste of time. The market regulates itself. Good translators (not just at translating) will always be busy.
G
| | | | | 话题中的页数: < [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? | 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! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
