| 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)
|
|---|
| entertainment? | Aug 12, 2012 |
Cilian O'Tuama wrote:
Any takers?
What point is being discussed?
This is so "all over the place". It has a certain entertainment value though.
Good way to make one not wanna say anything anymore!
But I'll wait for other opinions.
Add-on: I'm beginning to understand what you mean.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-12 04:54 GMT]
| | | | | On police states, and non-verified status, past or present | Aug 12, 2012 |
Dear Katalin,
I did not answer to your post because I am trying to disengage. My only goal was getting this site to be a little more professional, not allowing that so-called professionals lie through their teeth to the clients. If you do not believe they are lying please explain me the “defense” raised by some of the most vociferous defenders of the status quo: if they were not asked re native language, they would not have to lie. I take that as admitting that those “native l... See more Dear Katalin,
I did not answer to your post because I am trying to disengage. My only goal was getting this site to be a little more professional, not allowing that so-called professionals lie through their teeth to the clients. If you do not believe they are lying please explain me the “defense” raised by some of the most vociferous defenders of the status quo: if they were not asked re native language, they would not have to lie. I take that as admitting that those “native language” declarations are by and large just lies, and intentional ones.
Further, we are not asking here anything other than the rules under which we all joined this site be complied with. They are contractual obligations. It is preposterous, grotesque, and even abhorrent to allege that requesting to comply with those contractual obligations is proper only in a “police state”. Having had the unique “opportunity” of living under a brutal dictatorship, a true police state, at a time that people disappeared at midnight, that prisoners were tortured, then drugged, and finally thrown, still alive, from airplanes to the Río de la Plata, that pregnant women had their babies while prisoners in concentration camps and later were killed and their babies stolen, that all of us, guilty of being young and college students, shuddered when walking through the streets of our respective hometowns we saw the green Ford Falcon cars with tinted glasses carrying the goons, the joint forces, the army (low cap intentional), the police (ditto) and the paramilitaries (low cap mandatory) patrolling the streets, I cannot even start thinking that those claims to avoid complying with what they contractually have to do may have any validity.
The case of those who do not want to join the CPN is inapposite. They were offered the opportunity to join a new program with some supposed benefits. Those refusing to join did not care, and many do not still care, about the supposed benefits, benefits they did not see, and still do not see, in joining. Either the benefits were not there or the price to pay to get them was too high. I highly respect those, whether right or wrong, that refuse to join. Contrast that with the situation of those who value the benefits in this case (listing themselves as native speakers) as they have vociferously stated here, but refuse to be verified, even if they have the obligation, if asked, to do so.
Finally, it is beyond discussion that clients have an absolutely right to get all the information they ask. With a system of verified native language or no language, they have it. A non-verified language is just the same as a non-language. Yes, Katalin, I insist on my interpretation of what refusing to be verified means.
Further, allowing to have unverified statements re native language does not eliminate liars. We would just be granting a limited license to lie, and the liars will have a price to pay, not being verified in their true native language.
In any event, that is wholly unsatisfactory to me, but I am not that affected by the outcome of this brainstorm. I can, and will, adopt the position, suggested by several in this thread: O well, it is just ProZ. I will try to disengage, which it will not be a great loss as my contribution to this thread has been at most marginal, or less than that.
Best,
Luis ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Please do check it out | Aug 12, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
First, you are talking about the advanced [connect jobs] board, not the regular one:
Yes, and I made it a point to call it the "Advanced Directory" every time I referred to it, to avoid any misunderstanding.
Yes, I am quite aware of the differences. I haven't used the regular directory in years, precisely because of the lack of search parameters.
I thought ProZ was going to get rid of it years ago, but it is still around.
Now, regarding filtering out "unverified" natives:
That's great that you can filter out "unverified native speakers" on the connect platform. You can't do that on the regular platform..
Please, check out the Advanced Directory. You will see that there is NO CHECKBOX to require verified status for the "native language". So, once again, there is NO DIFFERENTIATION CURRENTLY ANYWHERE in this regard. My point is precisely to ADD THE DIFFERENTIATION, to ADD THE CHECKBOX, just the same way as it is for other credentials (again, please see the "Credentials" field on the left side).
No, a NATIVE speaker will always be seen as a native speaker, call him/her "verified" or "unverified".
First of all, I would use "verified" and "declared", I think this is the same distinction for the other (linguistic) credentials, too.
Our problem is the abuse that is possible because of the permanent unverified status. On the regular directory platform, that abuse is even easier and more likely because you can only search for "native speakers".
That is why I say a greater differentiation is necessary, across ProZ.com (in both directories, if ProZ.com intends to keep both, and on the jobs platform).
I proposed to have one and only one "native speaker" credential. You are either a native speaker or you are NOT. If you're not, you are a non-native speaker.
That is quite correct. However, you have to look at practicality, here, at ProZ. Then, things will not be that simple, especially when it comes to HOW to assess it (see the other thread).
If you keep the "unverified" native language credential, it should be an initial, tentative credential only. So, if we leave the options as you suggest, "unverified native speakers" should not be able to remain "unverified" native speakers indefinitely, they MUST get verified within a relatively short period of time.
Yes, it is definitely necessary as an initial attribute, because you should allow people to declare their native languages when they join the site. As to how long is "tentative", that greatly depends on the site's capacity to perform the verification process.
However, I prefer the following two options:
"verified" native speaker (VNS) = true credential
"non-native speaker" (NNS) - now if you want to imply that the person is working in that language, call it "working language" but don't call it anything with the word "native" in it. Otherwise we''ll never change the status quo.
So, you are saying, if the word "native" is in it, it carries the meaning "native", no matter whether the preceding word is "verified" or "declared"; no matter whether the little "N" icon is grey or yellow - it is seen as just the same for outsourcers?
Then why is it that in the other thread, where Lisa proposed to turn all yellow Ns to grey for now, until there is an actual verification process (I suggested that here, too), you objected, saying you don't want to lose your "verified" status? What is the problem? You said the grey icon means just the same as the yellow in the eyes of the outsourcers - isn't it?
Katalin
| | | | | continuing to improve status quo | Aug 12, 2012 |
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Now, regarding filtering out "unverified" natives:
That's great that you can filter out "unverified native speakers" on the connect platform. You can't do that on the regular platform.. Please, check out the Advanced Directory. You will see that there is NO CHECKBOX to require verified status for the "native language". So, once again, there is NO DIFFERENTIATION CURRENTLY ANYWHERE in this regard. My point is precisely to ADD THE DIFFERENTIATION, to ADD THE CHECKBOX, just the same way as it is for other credentials (again, please see the "Credentials" field on the left side).
I stand corrected on that one, Katalin. Thanks for pointing it out.
You can only choose "native language/native proficiency."
That would be fine then if only the "verified" natives are listed in the search results.
Bu that's not the case.
I am not proposing to add the "unverified" native language credential there but if that were the only thing being done, it would be better than the status quo.
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
However, I prefer the following two options:
"verified" native speaker (VNS) = true credential
"non-native speaker" (NNS) - now if you want to imply that the person is working in that language, call it "working language" but don't call it anything with the word "native" in it. Otherwise we''ll never change the status quo.
So, you are saying, if the word "native" is in it, it carries the meaning "native", no matter whether the preceding word is "verified" or "declared"; no matter whether the little "N" icon is grey or yellow - it is seen as just the same for outsourcers? Then why is it that in the other thread, where Lisa proposed to turn all yellow Ns to grey for now, until there is an actual verification process (I suggested that here, too), you objected, saying you don't want to lose your "verified" status? What is the problem? You said the grey icon means just the same as the yellow in the eyes of the outsourcers - isn't it?
Yes, in the eyes of the outsourcers, it will because that's what make sense. Although if you switch everybody on this site to "declared", out of the blue, some outsourcers will be very curious what happened.
But it doesn't mean the same from Proz.com's and the translators perspective. All of the sudden, all true verified native speakers all of the sudden find themselves in the company of "unverified (now declared) NATIVE speakers" and possibly fraudulent claimants, and there's no verification process in place.
So how long do I have to wait to "regain" the credential I deserve?
Not an option for me, sorry.
I'll keep my "verified" icon and submit to a re-verification if anybody wants to.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-12 03:32 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Liar, liar pants on fire | Aug 12, 2012 |
Just a very short comment:
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
If you do not believe they are lying
I never said that. There are many, who are lying.
Untrue statements are abundant regarding native languages, credentials, qualifications, expertise, experience, etc. Some of these lies are quite obvious, some of them are "better covered".
Do you think I am happy about these?
Do you think I wouldn't want them all to go away?
Do you think I won't want the rule on misrepresentation to be really enforced?
No, I am not happy, yes, I want them to go, and yes, I want it to be enforced.
The problem is finding a solution that is practical given the current size of the site, the number of users. The way I see it, these things should have been dealt with a lot earlier, on an ongoing basis, because now it is like trying to clean up a very large, polluted lake. I am not saying we should just give up, and learn to live by the polluted lake, what I am saying is that a solution that looks obvious and easy to implement on a small scale may not work here.
Further, allowing to have unverified statements re native language does not eliminate liars.
That is correct. But maybe there is no practical way to eliminate them.
We would just be granting a limited license to lie, and the liars will have a price to pay, not being verified in their true native language.
Yes, and the other price they pay is that they could be excluded from searches. What I am saying is that maybe this is the best we can do. Again, think practical.
Luis, if you have doubts on what my views are on verification of credentials, please review this thread in the CPN network forum area.
http://www.proz.com/forum/certified_pro_network/183517-non_verified_credentials_and_incorrectly_verified_credentials.html
I fought for a long time (years) to get the "credential" area of the profiles cleaned up, and get the verification process right - to no avail. This is why I have serious doubts as to the site's ability to actually verify native languages. It seems that verifying credentials, (where all it takes is to check what the certificate says and understand what it means) is in many cases beyond the capability of ProZ staff. For example, to this date, monolingual credentials get listed and verified by ProZ as bilingual linguistic credentials. This actually bothers me more than the false native language claims, because for an outsourcer it may be easier to catch a lie about a native language, then a lie about a certificate.
Anyway, I am also trying to disengage, because I think I really said all I could about this.
Katalin
| | | | | Contradiction | Aug 12, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Yes, in the eyes of the outsourcers, it will because that's what make sense. Although if you switch everybody on this site to "declared", out of the blue, some outsourcers will be very curious what happened.
If they were so oblivious to the difference between grey and yellow so far, why would they notice that there are no yellows anymore? In fact, it would be less confusing for such outsourcers.
All of the sudden, all true verified native speakers all of the sudden find themselves in the company of "unverified (now declared) NATIVE speakers" and possibly fraudulent claimants, and there's no verification process in place.
[bold emphasis is mine]
Excuse me, but how can there be "true verified native speakers" where "there's no verification process in place"??? This is the crux of the problem.
This is double standard, because you and I have a yellow N, saying "verified", without going through any verification. We got it just because we declared that language as the only one. Please read back in this thread where people said in certain language pairs people deliberately declaring ONE non-native language as their native, and they are getting the yellow N automatically. So, where does that put the value of the yellow N???
So how long do I have to wait to "regain" the credential I deserve?
Well, if somebody asked "Who says you deserve it?" - would you get angry, or would you recognize it as a legitimate question given the circumstances?
Not an option for me, sorry.
I understand that you don't want to give up your yellow N.
So, please try to see the contradiction:
If you are so keen on keeping the yellow N, you must be thinking it is valuable to have a different color than the "declared" natives. You must feel there is a distinction, otherwise you would not cling to it so eagerly.
At the same time you claim that outsourcers don't know the difference or don't care. If this latter were true, than you should be happy with just a grey N, because even with the grey N, you still differentiate yourself from those who did not declare German as their native, and this is the only thing your yellow N does anyway, according to your claim. So, turning all yellow Ns to grey until there is a solution for verification and corresponding differentiation for searches and jobs should be OK with you.
Since you said you would not be happy with this, that means your claim about the outsourcers oblivion is not true, they do see the difference, especially if it is pointed out more prominently, and they can actually filter for it. Which is what I am pushing for, not because I think it is the best solution, but because I think it is a practical, feasible solution that ProZ.com may be willing to implement.
I am now really signing off.
Katalin
[Edited at 2012-08-12 03:36 GMT]
| | | | | no contradictions | Aug 12, 2012 |
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
So how long do I have to wait to "regain" the credential I deserve? Well, if somebody asked "Who says you deserve it?" - would you get angry, or would you recognize it as a legitimate question given the circumstances?
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Not an option for me, sorry.
I'm not giving it up. I don't think it's in any "true native speaker's" interest to give it up.
When I say true verified native speaker I mean ME and all other true native speakers who currently have the yellow "verified" native language status.
Why don't you quote me when I say I would indeed submit to a re-verification procedure before peers to "keep" my verified status. My solution is in the interest of all true native speakers.
What I'm not going to accept is a grey button without an opportunity to first get verified.
Believe me, I am a native speaker of German - und wenn du's nicht glaubst, kannst ja bei Proz.com urgieren und mich anschwärzen.
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
I understand that you don't want to give up your yellow N.
So, please try to see the contradiction:
If you are so keen on keeping the yellow N, you must be thinking it is valuable to have a different color than the "declared" natives. You must feel there is a distinction, otherwise you would not cling to it so eagerly.
At the same time you claim that outsourcers don't know the difference or don't care. If this latter were true, than you should be happy with just a grey N, because even with the grey N, you still differentiate yourself from those who did not declare German as their native, and this is the only thing your yellow N does anyway, according to your claim. So, turning all yellow Ns to grey until there is a solution for verification and corresponding differentiation for searches and jobs should be OK with you.
Where is the contradiction?
yellow N, you must be thinking it is valuable
Yes, it "officially" (by Proz.com's standards) means I am and everyone else with the yellow icon is a true native speaker. If it's not true, whoever has a yellow icon is a fraud, shouldn't have it and should be "verified", yes! But I wouldn't accept the greying-out-before-verification proposal.
different color than the "declared" natives. You must feel there is a distinction
Yes, "declared" is not the same as "verified" status. Grey (or whatever non-yellow color) is not yellow
Yes, there is a clear distinction. See my comments above.
you should be happy with just a grey N, because even with the grey N, you still differentiate yourself from those who did not declare German as their native, and this is the only thing your yellow N does anyway
No, I'm not happy with it.
As a matter of fact, it would be a contradiction if I were.
This is in fact a demotion. If you want to demote me, you have to give me the chance to "keep" the "verified native language" credential first. I wouldn't accept anything less.
I am always and have always been willing to prove that I am in fact a native speaker of German.
I am going to start a poll about how others feel about getting demoted to "declared" native speakers.
In many of my 72 posts to date I have argued again and again why I accept the yellow verified status for single-native-language claims but I have also suggested how to improve the way it is awarded without verification before peers. (Please re-visit my posts.)
Janet had a very good idea with her questionnaire and I added a suggestion to make all new and current single-native-language speakers go through that questionnaire and e-sign a sworn document about their native language and make it accessible on their profile. That can easily be introduced.
I also have a few times today expressed my willingness to "check/re-verify" my native language without having to lose my yellow icon.
It will look worse for those who have a yellow icon if they need to get re-verified before peers and fail than if they were "just" declared natives. Let's see how many will keep up their single-native language claim if they know they will have to re-verify it shortly.
My main point is: you can't take away the "verified" native credential if you don't give me an opportunity to prove my native language.
And I am certain Proz.com staff feels the same.
I begin to understand what Cilian was referring to earlier today. It gets harder to get anywhere if we're not pulling on the same string but lose ourselves in skirmishes like this one.
But that's the sad thing about this thread.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-12 07:15 GMT]
| | | | | See my point? | Aug 12, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Where is the contradiction?
different color than the "declared" natives. You must feel there is a distinction
Yes, "declared" is not the same as "verified" status. Grey (or whatever non-yellow color) is not yellow
Yes, there is a clear distinction.
Then why do you insists that outsourcers don't see the distinction?
THIS IS THE CONTRADICTION. You say there is a clear distinction, but then you say there isn't, it is all the same for outsourcers. So, is it clear, or not? See my point?
I also think there is a distinction, but it could and should be made more prominent, more clear, precisely for the benefit of the true natives. Believe me, we are on the same side.
Step One: Introduce a prominent checkbox where whoever searches the directory could filter for "verified" status among those who declared a language "native". Do the same for the job posting form. This is easy to implement, and it would immediately improve the status quo. There is no need to touch anybody's profile, no need for "demotion". No worries for ProZ in that sense.
Step Two would be introducing the verification process. Whether existing single-language native claims would need to be re-verified is another issue altogether, the main issue as far as I remember was to verify native claims in two or more languages. Even if Step Two gets implemented, having Step One implemented first is still a good thing.
As to the "demotion" issue - yes, nobody would like it. Do you know that there are a bunch of true native speakers whose N is grey just because they are not paying members of the site? I cannot imagine the site investing energy into verifying non-paying members' status, so according to your proposal, where only one kind of native "icon", the verified yellow one exists, they would be "demoted" to "no native language" status. Wouldn't that be also taking away something that they feel they deserve? You said yourself, that the site would probably not take away things, and I agree with that observation. So, we have to work with what is already "given" (grey and yellow Ns), and make things better by changing the benefits those icons provide. The goal is to provide more meaningful benefits for the yellows than for the greys.)
That's where I am coming from.
Katalin
(Please do not expect more posts from me.)
| | |
|
|
|
| I am glad some understood the ridiculousness of this thread | Aug 12, 2012 |
No institution in the world certifies native language because it is a term used for many different purposes, not just translation and it cannot be certified for professional reasons. It is really not measurable. Had some people studied some linguistics, they would have known that. Also, absolutely, the client has the right to know details about the translator's source and target languages -- they can ask them some questions, if they are not sure what kind of language proficiency they posses, and... See more No institution in the world certifies native language because it is a term used for many different purposes, not just translation and it cannot be certified for professional reasons. It is really not measurable. Had some people studied some linguistics, they would have known that. Also, absolutely, the client has the right to know details about the translator's source and target languages -- they can ask them some questions, if they are not sure what kind of language proficiency they posses, and they can look at their detailed resumes.
' ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Two different types of "verification"? | Aug 12, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Problem is, if you don't make verification mandatory after a certain grace period, those who are arguably cheating will never subject themselves to the verification process before peers because they can have the cake for free ("native" language listing) and eat it too (get jobs based on that).
On the other thread, I support improving the current single-native-language verification method by adding a questionnaire and sworn statement signed by e-signature, including a disclaimer that if one were to later add additional languages, ALL these native languages would need to be (re-)verified before native language peers.
I'd still do away with the "unverified native language" credential for two or (possibly) more languages completely OR set a time limit after which these languages must be verified or one loses their native language credentials for all languages.
2) making any additional native language claims subject to peer verification, meaning you must apply for verification or schedule a date and place (physical place or online, incl identity verification) for verification. "Unverified native language" declaration would not be possible on the site. Only after the person has been verified as a NS, they will then be able to display the VNS credential.
Well, if a native language is a native language, then the other native language is a native language too, isn't it? If the first native language is verified only based on a questionnaire and "sworn" statement, the other native languages should be verified with the same methods. Why? It's simple: if non-nativeness could be spotted only by native peers, then a fraud would declare and sign the "sworn" statement for the language s/he doesn't want verified by natives. Then s/he would gladly undergo verification for the second language, which is his/her true native language and would not fail verification by native peers.
All languages declared native (regardless of whether there is one, two or three of them) must be verified the SAME way.
If the first native language is verified based on a questionnaire, and verification for the second language were delayed until the system comes up with something, those who really have two native languages would be discriminated, because until the verification process is in place, they couldn't bid on native-only jobs for that second native language.
And allow me to add: in uncommon language pairs (e.g. any Eastern European language > EN), outsourcers prefer not to exclude the non-natives because many of the EN natives translating from that uncommon language simply don't know their source language. It's easier for these clients to polish the non-native grammar, style, etc. than to question every single phrase which is more complex for fear that the native EN translator might have missed something in the source language. I could give you actual examples in at least two pairs, if it weren't unethical to tell on colleagues...
OT: I say source language knowledge should also be verified and all those who have more than 1 (severe) interpretation mistake per 3-5 pages or per 10 minutes, should be banned from bidding for that source language
P.S. As for the "sworn" statement, I'm not sure ProZ has the authority to make people swear. What would you do if you found a non-native mistake (caused by negligence?) on a verified native's profile? You sue them for perjury? This "sworn" thing is insane.
P.S.2 You spot non-natives not because they fail to prove being born in this or that country or having graduated from this or that university or being raised in this or that environment. You spot them because they make LINGUISTIC mistakes.
In my opinion, any nativeness verification would have to be about that - proficiency. There are educated people who become weaker in their native proficiency after living outside their native country - others don't. There are people of certain ethnic minorities (e.g. Hungarians in Romania) that acquire the majority's language at a native proficient level - others don't. It also has to do with intelligence and a "feeling" for languages.
Then again, if you verified proficiency, some natives would clearly be worse than others and make non-native-like linguistic mistakes simply because they aren't proficient enough to be translators. You can't deny them the right to compete, though. Albeit they are real natives, they would fail the nativeness test.
So it's all about competition and money.
Then the nativeness pushers would say that a non-translator native is not the same as a translator claiming to be native, and that the translator has to meet higher quality standards. So is it or is it not about proficiency after all? Besides: says who? Since when the worse quality providers aren't allowed to compete? The nativeness promoters claim that the liars get unfair advantage - let's be serious, they are chosen for certain jobs not because of their lies, but because of their lower rates. I've noticed this even in my chronically low-rate country.
I think it's clear this is not about nativeness per se, but quality and proficiency. And competition and money.
[Edited at 2012-08-12 12:22 GMT]
| | | | | it's about image, value, and truth | Aug 12, 2012 |
Annamaria Amik wrote:
If the first native language is verified only based on a questionnaire and "sworn" statement, the other native languages should be verified with the same methods. Why? It's simple: if non-nativeness could be spotted only by native peers, then a fraud would declare and sign the "sworn" statement for the language s/he doesn't want verified by natives. Then s/he would gladly undergo verification for the second language, which is his/her true native language and would not fail verification by native peers.
With the same methods? No. Not necessarily. I have said that I support verification of ALL native languages before peers if one claims more than one NL, either simultaneously or after he/she all of the sudden acquired an additional native language.
Annamaria Amik wrote:
All languages declared native (regardless of whether there is one, two or three of them) must be verified the SAME way.
If the first native language is verified based on a questionnaire, and verification for the second language were delayed until the system comes up with something, those who really have two native languages would be discriminated, because until the verification process is in place, they couldn't bid on native-only jobs for that second native language.
No. Can be perhaps, MUST be - no.
Discrimination? No. Improvement, yes. Cut one possibly fraudulent claim out right away.
Annamaria Amik wrote:
And allow me to add: in uncommon language pairs (e.g. any Eastern European language > EN), outsourcers prefer not to exclude the non-natives because many of the EN natives translating from that uncommon language simply don't know their source language. It's easier for these clients to polish the non-native grammar, style, etc. than to question every single phrase which is more complex for fear that the native EN translator might have missed something in the source language. I could give you actual examples in at least two pairs, if it weren't unethical to tell on colleagues...
Include them in the translator pool. Don't call them NATIVE speakers. They're NON-Natives.
Annamaria Amik wrote: OT: I say source language knowledge should also be verified and all those who have more than 1 (severe) interpretation mistake per 3-5 pages or per 10 minutes, should be banned from bidding for that source language
Why don't you start a new thread for that.
Annamaria Amik wrote:
P.S. As for the "sworn" statement, I'm not sure ProZ has the authority to make people swear. What would you do if you found a non-native mistake (caused by negligence?) on a verified native's profile? You sue them for perjury? This "sworn" thing is insane.
Quoting Proz.com:
8.11 - What do the different colored icons mean? [Direct link]
A blue and yellow ProZ.com Native Speaker icon () is used to represent native languages that are reasonably certain to be accurate. This includes native languages that have been confirmed by ProZ.com, and native languages reported by ProZ.com members who have sworn that they only have one native language (a native language cannot be changed once it is declared).
Annamaria Amik wrote:
P.S.2 You spot non-natives not because they fail to prove being born in this or that country or having graduated from this or that university or being raised in this or that environment. You spot them because they make LINGUISTIC mistakes.
Yes, by non-native mistakes. But you can also tell that someone very likely is / is not a native speaker of one sole native language based on a questionnaire as suggested by Janet.
Annamaria Amik wrote:
In my opinion, any nativeness verification would have to be about that - proficiency. There are educated people who become weaker in their native proficiency after living outside their native country - others don't.
Covered that. You can lose your proficiency, yes.
Annamaria Amik wrote:
There are people of certain ethnic minorities (e.g. Hungarians in Romania) that acquire the majority's language at a native proficient level - others don't. It also has to do with intelligence and a "feeling" for languages.
Covered that under "how do you become a native speaker".
When you say "it also has to do with intelligence and feeling, you're thinking of NON-natives. And I would be careful using the term "intelligence".
Annamaria Amik wrote:
Then again, if you verified proficiency, some natives would clearly be worse than others and make non-native-like linguistic mistakes simply because they aren't proficient enough to be translators. You can't deny them the right to compete, though. Albeit they are real natives, they would fail the nativeness test.
So it's all about competition and money.
I don't agree. It's very very unlikely a native speaker will fail verification. It's much more likely that they all pass it than that any non-native will pass it.
Annamaria Amik wrote:
Then the nativeness pushers would say that a non-translator native is not the same as a translator claiming to be native, and that the translator has to meet higher quality standards. So is it or is it not about proficiency after all?
It's about all these things. But it's much more likely that a native speaker will do a great job as a translator than a non-native (with respect to the target language).
It's about the difference between natives and non-natives, not between native non-translators and native translators. It's also not about the difference between native non-translators and non-natives who claim to be profcient translators from or into a non-native language of theirs.
Annamaria Amik wrote:
Besides: says who? Since when the worse quality providers aren't allowed to compete? The nativeness promoters claim that the liars get unfair advantage - let's be serious, they are chosen for certain jobs not because of their lies, but because of their lower rates. I've noticed this even in my chronically low-rate country.
No. They ARE chosen because of the lie that says: I am a native speaker.
They have to be cheap already to apply for cheap jobs.
Annamaria Amik wrote:
I think it's clear this is not about nativeness per se, but quality and proficiency. And competition and money.
It's about image, value, and truth.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-12 15:29 GMT]
| | | |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: No. They ARE chosen because of the lie that says: I am a native speaker. They have to be cheap already to apply for cheap jobs. Annamaria Amik wrote:
I think it's clear this is not about nativeness per se, but quality and proficiency. And competition and money.
It's about image, value, and truth.
I'll ignore the fact that you haven't provided counterarguments to what I said other than emotional outbursts.
Well, if it's about image, value, and truth AND this is a cheap website with cheap jobs, why do you want a good image on such a website?
It is not about truth - let's be honest: it is about a slice of truth which has to do with competing against low-rate non-natives.
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 03:44
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | A simple solution | Aug 17, 2012 |
After 100+ pages on this thread and 8+ on the other one, it has become amply clear that many members attach a great value to having the N tag on their profile. Let us not go into the reasons - stated as well as unstated - behind their desire here, as both of these have been sufficiently elaborated upon elsewhere in this thread.
I think it will be possible to accommodate this desire of some members if we concede certain things.
The first thing that we will need to conce... See more After 100+ pages on this thread and 8+ on the other one, it has become amply clear that many members attach a great value to having the N tag on their profile. Let us not go into the reasons - stated as well as unstated - behind their desire here, as both of these have been sufficiently elaborated upon elsewhere in this thread.
I think it will be possible to accommodate this desire of some members if we concede certain things.
The first thing that we will need to concede is that nativeness in a language has very little to do with translation quality or proficiency. It is just an added badge that some members would like to flaunt on their profile. It is misleading to take it as some kind of a guarantee of quality as some members would like to present it, and as some outsourcers allegedly use it.
There should be no harm in some members wanting to flaunt their nativity, provided this does not hurt the professional interests of other members on this site.
Professional interests of other members are hurt when the native badge gives unfair advantage to the holders of this badge over other members who are equally capable of producing a translation of comparable quality. It is to counter this unfair advantage that false statements with respect to nativeness are made, however indefensible, or otherwise, that may be.
This could be avoided if we very consciously delink the two concepts of nativity and translation quality.
The holders of the nativity badge mainly benefit because it is currently also presented as a badge of quality - and the aim has been, unfortunately, in both these threads to actively promote this false idea.
In the interest of honesty and professionalism, and in the interest of resolving this issue, and thus saving much internet bandwidth and time, let us respond to the following sensible suggestion:
Let us verfiy native language claims on this site, but let us also not allow it to be presented as a quality-marker.
It is when we mix up the quality aspect with a straightforward idea like nativeness, that the issue becomes a huge bone of contention.
Once we agree to treat these as two separate issues, things will become more tractable.
We can then simply define native language as follows:
The language that was spoken around you at the time of your birth and up to say five years.
The other attributes currently attributed to native language - such as proficiency, schooling, continued professional use, higher education, etc., are not defining aspects of native language, and these can also be claimed by people for whom the language spoken at the time of their birth was different. The latter attributes overlap with the attributes of "the language in which you are professionally trained to translate" which need not necessarily be the native language.
The above definition of native language is unambiguous and difficult to misrepresent. It also provides no leeway for making false claims of nativity, nor does it provide any leeway for claiming superior competency in the target language because of the nativity attribute. That is, it will curb dishonesty in both camps.
Verifying this definition is also a very simple matter, and can be done inexpensively by providing documents such as birth certificates.
This also means, all the other elaborate, and impractical, verification methods proposed so far in these two threads fall by the wayside, because what they are trying to verify is not nativeness in a language, but proficiency in a language, and are all based on this muddled idea that nativeness in a language is the same as translation quality.
[2012-08-17 18:44 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 03:44
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Annamaria Amik wrote:
It is not about truth - let's be honest: it is about a slice of truth which has to do with competing against low-rate non-natives.
Exactly.
And the solution is not verifying native language status, but weaning away the non-native translators from offering cheap rates, which they arguably do because of the discrimination practiced on this site visavis nativity.
Once this discrimination is ended, there would be no commercial advantage in non-native translators charging a low rate which they currently use as their USP to neutralise the nativity USP of their competitors.
Both these positions are detrimental to the overall development of the translation industry.
Everyone will benefit if there is a level playing field and no one is forced to offer discounted rates to compensate for artificial barriers like the nativity criterion.
The way things are currently playing out is that because non-native translators are discriminated against in translation jobs, they offer low rates as a compensation to entice outsourcers. Since a low rate is a powerful incentive for many outsources, these outsourcers increasingly lean towards non-native translators and soon also discover that many of them turn in translations of comparable quality. So the outsourcers get a double benefit of cheap translations of good quality.
In other words, by harping on the nativity issue, the nativity promoters are shooting themselves on their own foot.
Now let us consider an alternative scenario where nativity confers no additional advantage. Competent non-native translators now don't have to dangle the carrot of a low rate to attract jobs. They can ask and get the same prices as the native translators. This will indirectly benefit the native translators too, as they won't now have to offer themselves at the same low rates as the non-natives to get jobs.
A win-win situation for all.
[2012-08-17 18:27 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:14
Hebrew to English
| For the love of whatever deity you worship..... | Aug 17, 2012 |
How is insisting on truthful reporting of native language claims (according to SITE RULES!) an attempt at eradicating non-native translators from charging low rates????
Bala.... wrote:
The holders of the nativity badge mainly benefit because it is currently also presented as a badge of quality
No, it isn't. Native language is simply presented. The only link between "nativity" (hark! the herald angels sing....) and quality is in the eye of the beholder (the same as every other criterion on the site). Credentials are presented, but as we know, there are plenty of credentialed baffoons on this site who wouldn't know their heads from their....
It's up to the outsourcer (the beholder) to attach value judgements to what they read and decide whether certain criteria equate to quality.
[Edited at 2012-08-17 18:34 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? | 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 
