| Vom Thema belegte Seiten: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] | would non-natives answering KudoZ Qs practice a little introspection please? Initiator des Themas: Lia Fail (X)
|
|---|
mediamatrix (X)
Local time: 05:27
Spanisch > Englisch
+ ...
| Clarification... | Oct 6, 2006 |
Lia wrote, making direct reference to a post from MediaMatrix:
As for having identified the Q that drew my ire (as also someone else in this forum), I would ask you and forum users to be be more circumspect and not draw attention to individual Qs if you happen to identify them, if the poster hasn't specifically identified them (and even if they have, which I think is not allowed anyway) ...
Careful examination of my previous posts in this thread shows that I did not identify the question in any way that was more explicit than Lia's first post. Nor have other contributors to this thread.
When I discovered Lia's first post here, where she stated I have just posted an answer to a Q which has recieved (sic )to date 1 answer ... and noted that her post was timed around Oct 4 - 21:45, the obvious course of action, if I wanted to get a fair understanding of the problem, was to look at the question.
It took just 30 seconds to find it, simply by looking at Lia's Kudoz statistics and scanning the most recent questions that she had answered (in any case, there was only one that she had 'just' replied to). If the above quote from Lia's first post is not "draw(ing) attention to individual Qs ...", or "specifically identif(ied)ying them" then I don't know what is!
In my posts here I have gone to considerable lengths to avoid mentioning any of the words/terms referred to in the question, and only mentioned the name of one answerer - Lia - who can hardly complain since she herself started this discussion.
So, yes, let's be circumspect in our actions. And let's practice what we preach.
Lia later asked:
Why are you making an issue out of a single Q ....?
I'm not 'making an issue' out of anything that has not already been presented as 'an issue' by the originator of this thread and other contributors. I'm simply using the 'single question' that triggered your self-confessed ire, expressed both in Kudoz and here in the forum, to illustrate some of the problems with the current structure of the Kudoz Q&A page, especially in respect of the adequate presentation and assessment of contributions that are not straightforward translations of the problematic source text. And I note that you, Lia, agree with me on a number of points that I raised as a result of my "very in-depth analysis" (your own words) of the question and the answers received.
It may be a failing attributable to my background in engineering, but before I go looking for remedies I tend to make sure I've correctly identified the symptoms. Call it 'circumspection', if you will...
Lia wrote:
What's more, do you realise that you are making a very in-depth analysis of a question that 30 or more contributors to this forum have no notion of?
Well, actually, at the time I'm writing this, there have been just 24 contributors to this thread. At least 3 of us have said we know which question triggered the thread (indeed, 3 of us contributed to that question). That leaves 21 curious professionals, many of whom, I imagine, have also sneaked a look at the question to see what all the fuss is about. And I venture to suggest that they have found it enlightening to do so...
More from Lia:
Finally, I have no particular interest in the Q or in the answer chosen, as for "who gets the points on this one" or any other Q for that matter.
Me neither! Except that when the asker choses the 'most helpful' answer we shall (perhaps) get a further insight into the value (or otherwise) of contributions that are not straightforward translations of the question.
And if, by chance, the asker of the question in question is following this thread, it would be interesting to read his/her comments on this present debate.
MediaMatrix
[Edited at 2006-10-06 15:34]
| | | | | Correction software ... | Oct 6, 2006 |
… and only allowing people with the right answer to suggest answers on ProZ. This is the kind of thing that makes these forums an undiluted joy …
Sophia Hundt wrote:
Claudia and Jackie,
Would you volunteer to create one? In every language combination? In every type of question? There are so many aspects to arriving at the correct answer, so many shades of meaning, connotation, usage, style, to name but the few, that I cannot imagine how this is humanly possible. Honestly, I am beyond sceptical.
And to add one more thought: For one thing, it's not always clear what the question is in the first place.
Claudia Iglesias wrote:
Jackie Bowman wrote:
I am not, in reality, among the busiest people in the known universe. But for those ProZ ‘users’ who are, perhaps it would be prudent if ProZ could obviate the peril of irritation by deploying some software to ensure that only people with the correct answer can suggest answers.
I'm sure this would be the solution for all kudoz, glossary and native related problems.
A software that detects when an answer is wrong and refuses to let the author enter it in the form. Great suggestion, we only need staff to implement it.
Claudia [Edited at 2006-10-06 02:22]
Hmm … How to put this …?
Dear Sophia,
Many years have passed since I lived in my home country, and during those years I have been made aware that the irony of the country’s natives is not its most successful export.
In the post you quote above, however, I must concede that I made an assumption that all readers would see it as a joke. I shouldn’t speak for anybody else, but I suspect that at least one person in Chile took it as a joke.
But the challenge you pose in your response is frankly irresistible. I will create one. I’ll need to coordinate with ProZ, of course, so I can’t give a deadline. And I have to complete other pending projects in the meantime. I’m in the process of building a television that only broadcasts things I want to watch, and a machine to ensure that the weather around my house is always perfect. But when I’ve done that, I’ll get straight to work on the correction software.
Your post made me smile a lot. Sincerely, thanks for that.
I must add a belated apology to Lia Fail for jumping the gun and wondering aloud where she was in the debate above. The time and care she has taken to respond to posters is striking and admirable. I don’t agree with everything she says (coincidentally, nobody agrees with everything I say, either, even in my own home), but her effort here merits real respect.
My own view is that this was a very worthwhile and interesting discussion – and that it vastly reinforces the argument for only light intervention from site moderators.
Thanks to all.
[Edited at 2006-10-06 20:08]
[Edited at 2006-10-06 20:12]
| | | | Lia Fail (X) 
Spanien
Local time: 11:27
Spanisch > Englisch
+ ...
THEMENSTARTER | Thanks Jackie:-) | Oct 6, 2006 |
Jackie Bowman wrote:
I must add a belated apology to Lia Fail for jumping the gun and wondering aloud where she was in the debate above. The time and care she has taken to respond to posters is striking and admirable. I don’t agree with everything she says (coincidentally, nobody agrees with everything I say, either, even in my own home), but her effort here merits real respect.
My own view is that this was a very worthwhile and interesting discussion – and that it vastly reinforces the argument for only light intervention from site moderators.
Thanks to all.
[Edited at 2006-10-06 20:08]
[Edited at 2006-10-06 20:12]
Thanks Jackie, I actually spent about 6.5 hours answering, finally got to bed at 6.30 am and missed my appointment for 9.30:-)
And yes, I found it an interesting discussion, and have to admit I jumped the gun slightly, but frustration does tend to accumulate and then explode!
Today I edited what I hope to be my last translation edit, and there were no surprises, the native (!) translator didn't even bother to run a spellcheck:-(
ProZ is a reflection, therefore, of the real world: just I think that as a huge community with over 100,000 translators, it really could do a lot to improve translation and its image.
So thanks to all contributors for your insights, which have reminded me of some of the positive aspects of all answers and of all answerers, whether native or non-native, professional or amateur. And if I didn't reply to everyone it was largely becuase I addressed the issue directly or indirectly in another reply (I hope:-))
| | | | Gina W
Vereinigte Staaten
Local time: 05:27
Mitglied (2003)
Französisch > Englisch
Mats Wiman wrote:
After endless fights for freedom of answering during six years I might just have arrived at what I see as a Golden Rule:
Never comment on your fellow participants, above all, do not bring them into derision, do not speak of them individually or as a group with contempt or as being inferior, not professional, not native enough, not knowledgeable enough etc.
This one should not do because:
1. You very often do not know the person good enough to pass judgement.
2. It creates an unfriendly atmosphere when persons are attacked or derided.
3. It leads away from what we should focus on:
a) Help each other (KudoZ)
b) Educate each other ( " )
c) Educate ourselves ( " )
d) Have interesting exchanges of ideas, thoughts, feelings and information (Forums)
This effort of mutual interest should not be smeared by derision (as above), dirt throwing, defamation, exclusion etc.
I couldn't agree more!
| | |
|
|
|
| Would be better said if honesty were mentioned in this golden rule | Oct 7, 2006 |
gad wrote:
Mats Wiman wrote:
After endless fights for freedom of answering during six years I might just have arrived at what I see as a Golden Rule:
Never comment on your fellow participants, above all, do not bring them into derision, do not speak of them individually or as a group with contempt or as being inferior, not professional, not native enough, not knowledgeable enough etc.
This one should not do because:
1. You very often do not know the person good enough to pass judgement.
2. It creates an unfriendly atmosphere when persons are attacked or derided.
3. It leads away from what we should focus on:
a) Help each other (KudoZ)
b) Educate each other ( " )
c) Educate ourselves ( " )
d) Have interesting exchanges of ideas, thoughts, feelings and information (Forums)
This effort of mutual interest should not be smeared by derision (as above), dirt throwing, defamation, exclusion etc.
I couldn't agree more!
Perhaps if people would adopt a policy of being honest about themselves and their languages/skills/knowledge then no "comments" would ever be made:
a. Don't claim you are native of a language that is NOT your native language (ie be honest)
b. Don't claim expertise in fields you have no expertise in (ie be honest)
c. Don't claim anything about yourself or your experience that you know is blatantly untrue (ie be honest)
d. Don't try to hide your lack of knowledge and/or skills by posting exaggerated levels of confidence (ie be honest)
| | | | Malik Beytek (X)
Local time: 12:27
| Talk of "honesty" not helpful; *automatic display of indicators of credibility* could help | Oct 7, 2006 |
writeaway wrote:
Perhaps if people would adopt a policy of being honest about themselves and their languages/skills/knowledge then no "comments" would ever be made:
a. Don't claim you are native of a language that is NOT your native language (ie be honest)
b. Don't claim expertise in fields you have no expertise in (ie be honest)
c. Don't claim anything about yourself or your experience that you know is blatantly untrue (ie be honest)
d. Don't try to hide your lack of knowledge and/or skills by posting exaggerated levels of confidence (ie be honest)
a,b,c above are not really matters of honesty or dishonesty; more specifically, they are matters of representing oneself accurately or inaccurately, and nobody gets away for long misrepresenting himself or herself; so why should any one do that - except that the notion of *native language* appears to be subject of debate?
As regards d, the confidence levels in KudoZ context, well I don't understand discussion of honesty / dishonesty there either. These questions are typically about very specific information, with very narrow scope. One who has no expertise in an area could indeed be sure or nearly sure about a specific bit of info in that area, while one who has considerable expertise in the same area might find himself / herself guessing about that very same bit of info.
I would suggest that, in the context of KudoZ, the web site software should automatically display, for answerers, perhaps what I could call, tentatively, "indicators of credibility", or maybe indicators of competence, which the software is already doing to some extent, and leave alone people about their markings of confidence levels.
[Edited at 2006-10-07 16:01]
| | | | Gina W
Vereinigte Staaten
Local time: 05:27
Mitglied (2003)
Französisch > Englisch
| We are professionals | Oct 7, 2006 |
writeaway wrote:
gad wrote:
Mats Wiman wrote:
After endless fights for freedom of answering during six years I might just have arrived at what I see as a Golden Rule:
Never comment on your fellow participants, above all, do not bring them into derision, do not speak of them individually or as a group with contempt or as being inferior, not professional, not native enough, not knowledgeable enough etc.
This one should not do because:
1. You very often do not know the person good enough to pass judgement.
2. It creates an unfriendly atmosphere when persons are attacked or derided.
3. It leads away from what we should focus on:
a) Help each other (KudoZ)
b) Educate each other ( " )
c) Educate ourselves ( " )
d) Have interesting exchanges of ideas, thoughts, feelings and information (Forums)
This effort of mutual interest should not be smeared by derision (as above), dirt throwing, defamation, exclusion etc.
I couldn't agree more!
Perhaps if people would adopt a policy of being honest about themselves and their languages/skills/knowledge then no "comments" would ever be made:
a. Don't claim you are native of a language that is NOT your native language (ie be honest)
b. Don't claim expertise in fields you have no expertise in (ie be honest)
c. Don't claim anything about yourself or your experience that you know is blatantly untrue (ie be honest)
d. Don't try to hide your lack of knowledge and/or skills by posting exaggerated levels of confidence (ie be honest)
No, I don't believe that no "comments" would be made - they are rampant now. and MANY are uncalled for, to say the least. Many of the "comments" made are so incredibly unprofessional that it's hard to believe anyone who makes such comments could call him/herself a professional, just because s/he SUPPOSEDLY has more knowledge and/or experience.
BTW, I have done NONE of the above yet I've had such incredibly rude "comments" posted to me ad nauseum, by certain individuals who consider themselves professionals.
I'm sorry that you missed the EXCELLENT point that Mats made - one that I've been repeatedly trying to make as well on this site - that professionals should treat each other with respect.
| | | | | Vom Thema belegte Seiten: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » would non-natives answering KudoZ Qs practice a little introspection please? | 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! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
