Talk:Translation/Archive 3

Vandalism versus Heredic

We might want to protect this page. The first paragraph has been vandalized.

The DarkArcher was here 01:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

- This article needs protection against Groupthink, as well as against walling, fiddling in self-purpose and vandalism as displayed by these Groupthinkers, and against the lack of compliance with Wikipedia's assessment scale in higher quality grades, and also against the "Don't Invent Anything New" syndrome, and other types of fun clicking.

[from the Heretic] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.98.89 (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

- A vandal is someone, whose action or contribution (including deletions, website freezing etc.) has no impact or has detrimental impact with regard to progressing upwards on Wikipedia's assessment scale for quality. Wikipedia's assessment scale for quality and tangible progress in ranking is the sole measuring stick.

It cannot be tolerated that the severity of such actions remain empty or are mere generalizations or are lowly or non-critical or preferential as to how they relate to an upwards movement on Wikipedia's assessment scale. Such actions are not proportional to the purpose and the assessment scales set by Wikipedia. Too much time and energy is wasted by all parties due to complacency in addressing this issue of progressing upwards on Wikipedia's assessment scale.

- If you are not capable of creating and delivering specific reasoning for your actions with regard to this reference or relationship to an upwards movement within Wikipedia's assessment scale in a substantial and significant manner, please refrain from becoming active in any manner within this article. Those performing such and any actions shall have the burden-of-proof to substantially and significantly justify and reason such actions. All actions are subordinate to the quality requirements mentioned. In the case of non-compliance to the above, you are the owner of your actions, thus responsible for a concludent ranking as vandal.

I recommend that a wiki log protocol should be established that logs such actions with regarding to their categorization and severity in order to increase traceability capabilities.

[from the Heredic] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.72.245 (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Log Protocol

1. Maxsch should refrain from vandalizing the article about MT and Google Translation Center, and citations regarding NIST, and the TAUS link under associations, or specifically explain his reasoning, including categorization and severity. Especially explain the relationship of this action towards enhanced progress on Wikipedia's assessment scale for quality. Background: Jim Henry asked that this piece should be formulated in prose. Jim Henry also composed the citations about empirical MT testing by NIST since 2001 to be included.

Except for saying, he does not understand, the discussion below does not include reasoning, categorization, severity for vandalization or deletion. There is no reference as to why the action leads to an enhancement in quality rating. No material was presented for non-verification.

2. EdJohnston should refrain from freezing the website without concrete and specific justification as to how this action enhances the quality progress on Wikipedia's assessment scale. Empty generalizations do not comply with this requirement. Background: The items regarding MT and Google Translation Center in the article were requested by Jim Henry to be formulated with more prose for better understanding. Jim Henry also deems the content to be relevant. Please check with him.

I am waiting for the requested specified response.

I didn't say they were relevant; I said they looked like they might be relevant. The text was so unclear I couldn't tell for sure whether it was relevant or not, but I wanted to assume good faith. As for the citations re: NIST, you (I think) had inserted it as a parenthetical note into the middle of a sentence already quite long enough, and I just reformatted it as a <ref>, again assuming in good faith that it was relevant; if someone else looked the cite up and decided it wasn't relevant, they were less lazy than me. --Jim Henry (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant is different. Not relevant can be ruled out. The citation function appeared in the list below as programmed. So did you get the picture meanwhile. I am not asking if this is your cup of tea. Some are amused, some are not amused. And some cannot even fathom it. Anyway Google is doing it and not asking anyone...

How can "not relevant" be ruled out? The fact that I formatted your reference correctly doesn't mean the reference itself is correct or relevant; non sequitur. No, I totally don't get the picture. If Maxsch were the only one who didn't understand what you were talking about, you could blame him, but I don't understand either, and as far as I can tell no one can; most of what you write is incoherent. --Jim Henry (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Google is taking a new Web 2.0-based Convergence approach in the structure of MT processing: Machine Translation + Crowdsourcing + Web 2.0 Translation memory. The statistical engine within the Google MT, which has already achieved #1 ranking in the NIST 2005 assessment, is now envisioned to be supported and to be enhanced by worldwide "crowd" contributions. At the same time, the worldwide "crowd" will have, in return, the productivity benefit of a worldwide Web 2.0 based translation memory. Thus, all system elements of this convergent mix will continuously improve.

The users do not need to take care of the IT resources held in the background (updates etc.) and all services are at no cost, as Google's Software as a service business model is based on advertisement via Adsense / Adwords. This actually also represents a movement towards Second order cybernetics, thus also towards Grid Computing and the Language Grid.

The imminent Google roll-out was uncovered by Google Blogoscoped on 2008-08-04, under Google Translation Center, On 2008-09-02, TAUS writes, Helping Google Help the World. As Google's MT continues to operate mechanically, the human organic side of a win/win Collaborative Translation as proposed by the Common Sense Advisory comes into focus, which will lead to the cybernetic reshape of organizational rules, structures and processes within traditional hierarchial translator domains (see also Virtual Commuting). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.124.162 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Eight Symptoms that are Indicative of Groupthink

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.

2. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.

3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.

5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".

6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Of Course, Please Discuss

I have never indicated any other purpose than implementing the quality targets of Wikipedia and progressing up this scale. Anything else is false.

I have said a lot, so what do you want say to the matter?

I think it would be a threat to translators if they were not aware of the actual status of things, and unduly downplaying the situation would also not be consistent with Wikipedia quality objectives. Besides discussions have already been held in ProZ.com, so it is not really a big deal to present. Google will do it, I have no doubt about this. And they will push the possibilities into "third-order" cybernetics without asking anyone, I am sure. Besides Wikipedia is in itself a role player in this development. We are, in fact, crowdsourcing within Wikipedia. Google is only merging the best of all. All they will do is an IT roll-out, if it your cup of tea or not.

I am in consensus with the quality targets of Wikipedia. And I embrace the factual content of the presented material.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.124.162 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you add new comments to the bottom of the talkpage, please? That is usually where people go to look for the new stuff. My main comment to you is that the translation page is about translation in general, about what it is. It isn't about individual projects on "grid computing" or lists of disruptive technologies. Those may be interests of yours, and indeed even of other translators, but it doesn't make them notable in this context. They may be notable in and of themselves, even notable enough to merit their own wikipedia articles. Personally, I don't think the problem with the translation article is a lack of content, adding things to it that are simply related to translation is only going to clutter the article and make it less clear. In my opinion, that would not be an improvement. maxsch (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Translation is not a single island of Gutenberg and Taylorism anymore. In the new way, Cybernetic, it is embedded in a systems approach of continuous improvement, and Google is making the systems viewpoint pretty evident.

You handle MT within Translation, and breach "the real old" traditional boundary lines actually already now, may I point out.

Yes, Google creates a new systems boundary, which overlaps and also extends outside of MT. The results of the converged or merged process yet impact the core theme of translation (as viewed from the old traditional boundary lines). So this article would need to handle the interfaces and overlaps with the new system, and embrace this change of paradigm. This article cannot be isolated in a systems boundary without interaction to other systems.

TAUS pointed out that if Translation continues to deem itself to be a separate entity, it will simply be converged into other systems, and nobody will ask or care anyway. In this case, Translation may then end a residual service. Check the Wiki article about Convergence, which shows a few analogous examples from other products and services.

The old traditional boundary lines are not a law of nature, new boundary lines are feasible, and are actually being implemented.

You might need to split Translation actually now, Traditional Translation (old boundaries), and Translation within the Systems Approach (new boundaries). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.124.162 (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise. "We" do not "handle MT within Translation," rather we mention machine translation in the (more general) article on translation. There is a separate article on Machine Translation (that "handles" itself) and one on the History of machine translation. Both are rich and interesting subjects and I do not mean to take away from either one. And yes, boundary lines are not a law of nature, but this wikipedia article starts from the premise that there is something called translation and that we can talk about it. I don't see why it would need to be split, and further I don't know what you mean by "Translation within the Systems Approach". It just sounds like empty words to me. maxsch (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Systems Approach is well known area of science, and Translation boundary lines are now changing, so the article gets a new face. The new system is a convergence of MT + Crowdsourcing + Web 2.0 TM. This is the new world of Translation for the 21st century. Cybernetics and Convergence are the driving disruptive forces (but not only for translation, the Convergence article has some striking examples). Before Translation was flat, now Translation is round. There is significant meaning in the words and conceptions, and it would be a threat to downplay the situation, and not create awareness.

I am sorry that you apparently cannot embrace the change in paradigm. But why are you the only one talking? Others surely understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.124.162 (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are the only one who thinks there has been a paradigm change. A paradigm change of one is no paradigm change at all. Frankly, your evidence is unconvincing and empty words. The only rational explanation is that you are putting us all on. You say "it would be a threat to downplay the situation" but there is no situation, and so, clearly, no threat (who would be threatened, anyway). Saying "the systems approach is [sic] well known area of science" is not saying anything at all. Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for "creating awareness" or other sorts of activism or promotion. You should start a blog or go back to ProZ.com. Your inability to make sense leaves me no choice but to ignore you. Others surely don't understand either. Sorry, I tried. maxsch (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for you, but you need to look at the link for Systems of course. So what don't you understand, please. The Systems approach clearly makes sense. Actually all you need to know is that the boundary line differs to the traditional Gutenberg and Taylorism approach. Again, the boundary lines differ. That's all you need to know. It's really simple. If fact, you do know. You are faking an excuse. Your boundary lines for Translation are not a law of nature, even if you would like to establish it so. It matches to Literary Translation anyway. But, as usual, you do not have the willingness to understand from the very beginning because of Groupthink attitude and behavior. This is what blocks you.

Well, we are directly in the middle of Groupthink again:

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking.

You cannot just push away the empirical material. I've seen you do this in the most ridiculous of cases already, e.g. NIST 2001-2008. This is pure nonsense. You repeatedly display Groupthink behavior, even where it is completely ridiculous. You need to deliver proof for non-verification in order to be valid on your part. You are not in compliance with your material burden-of-proof, you are fiddling feeble excuses in self-purpose again. Critical testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas is required, not avoidance behavior.

Besides, what makes you the information gatekeeper in this. Sometimes, I hear a level of authorization that you just don't possess. This place is for many voices. You don't represent the voice of Translation and you have no veto authorization. This issue has empirically and materially matured so that it cannot be vetoed. I mean, tell Google to stop what they doing if you think this is all not feasible. A few people at Google, TAUS, and many more are involved. I don't feel alone. A lady from Austria emailed me last week in XING and told me that she wants to do a doctor's thesis in Collaborative Translation after seeing some material. This term is yet missing in the article completely. How do you explain that?

Saying you do not understand does not mean nothing is there. So how can you draw conclusions if you do not understand? No wonder you are not progressing upwards in Wikipedia's quality scale. This article is under threat of a C-Class rating

C-Class rating: Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.

Something is there, and you need to get knowledgeable, otherwise your qualification for participation in this article is getting questionable, I would tend to think. This is where the threat lies for others who don't take the trouble to challenge obsolete ways, and then fall into being obsolete although it could have been prevented. By saying you do not understand is not the deliverance of material proof of non-verification. Non-verification needs some more beef. You have not fulfilled your burden-of-proof to justify any veto. Weak and feeble excuses are surely not Wikipedia A-Class rating quality. Not understanding means no grounds for drawing conclusions or beef for any argumentation, thus no upwards movement on Wikipedia's quality assessment scale. You will simply not reflect an A-Class rating format at this rate of self-purpose fiddling.

A-Class rating: Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. You are simply not here. A-Format people do not produce your excuses.

My proposal: Translation shall be split into 2 new URLs, Traditional Literary Translation (flat), and Translation in the 21st Century (round). You participate in the flat version, and others do the round version. The discussion has shown that you cannot cope with the changing term Translation. I mean, you have at least understood that something is changing, like the boundary lines, even if you cannot fathom it. It has also become evident that it does not make sense for you embrace the role as information gatekeeper for the full URL domain Translation. The URL to Translation contains only links to the historically (and maybe also sociologically) different branches emerging. Maybe a sociological explanation can support this differentiation at this point. The reader can then choose his preference. --78.49.32.64 (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Influence on intellectual progress & development

I wonder if there should be a section about the influence of translation on the development of regions and cultures. Seems to me that seeing how many works are typically translated into a particular language is a good barometer on how freely ideas are being exchanged there, and how progressive a society is. Take, for example, this bit of info from this article:

"Although Arab culture, from Baghdad to Toledo, led the world in the art of translation in the 8th and 9th centuries, transmitting ancient Greek and Latin texts that helped fuel Europe's renaissance, the UN estimates that the entire number of books translated into Arabic in the past 1,000 years is the same as that now rendered into Spanish in a single year. This falling behind, long lamented by some Arab intellectuals, was identified by the UN Development Programme in 2002 as a hindrance to progress in the Arab world, which helped concentrate the minds of some of its rulers."

Although that same article also says that there are far more English books being translated into Arabic these days than Arabic books into English. This is also something that I've noticed with Russian in recent years. It suggests a 1-directional flood of cultural influence.

Has there been any thorough academic discussion about the cultural impact of translation (or lack of it) on different cultures today? Esn (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The culture-developing function of translation is alluded to in the final paragraph of this article's "Misconceptions" section and in a couple of places in the "History of theory" section. This is, however, such an important and under-appreciated concept that it might well merit a section of its own. Some twenty years ago I perused a book on the subject, but don't recall the title. No doubt there are other books and articles as well, and maybe someone with access could do a concise summary. Nihil novi (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

True, there are some brief allusions in those sections, but they do not approach anywhere near the detail that the subject deserves, I think. If such a section were brought to full realization, I think there would be a fair number of interwiki links to other major articles, because it would touch a number of other social studies. I wouldn't mind writing something myself eventually if nobody else is willing to, but I wouldn't want to start without reading a bit more about the subject than a few paragraphs in newspaper articles. I'd be grateful if someone had some good books or scholarly papers to recommend. Esn (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Added Resource

I put in #translate from UnderNet, we are a group dedicated to translating things for people. 24.225.22.231 (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, whoever deleted my resource could at least have the stones to tell me why. 24.225.22.231 (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't checked who did it last time but I'm about to do it again. Page is not about where to get your translations done, that would fail WP:HOWTO and WP:NOTDIR, your link is innapropriate on those grounds too. See Wikipedia:External links for general guidance. As to your assertion on article page about conflict of interest, I'm not sure the Wiki link is appropriate either, though it is at least a site discussing the article subject rather than just providing a service. Please note that not everything with 'wiki' in the title has anything to do with Wikipedia - that site certainly doesn't look like a related project. -Hunting dog (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the link to wiki-translation.com as well it seems to fail Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point 12 Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors -Hunting dog (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Modern Translation Issues - Multilingual Publishing

I think that there is a lot of room for comment regarding the increasing need for translation in the modern commercial world. We can see this highlighted by the advent, development and popularity of Machine Translation (in most cases however, machine translation fails due to its inability to take into account contextual issues and cultural nuances). If we look towards the expansion of the web, we see the demand for information in languages other than English escalate. Particularly when economically emergent nations add new users and therefore new voices and perspectives to the medium. If we look at Asia, we have seen massive increases in web users amongst the Chinese population (as of June, the country overtook the US in the number of internet users; with a reported 253 million people with internet access (Source: International Herald Tribune - http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/25/business/internet.php)). This fact is made more pertinent when you consider that there are significantly fewer sites available in Chinese in comparison to English (source http://www.internetworldstats.com/languages.htm). All this points to the need for information to be made available in proportion to size the world community that needs it. On a smaller scale, we can see this happening more and more often in local government here in the UK. There are many initiatives that have been put into place to promote integration. Literature, road signage and local government web content have all been published in languages other than English to represent the demographic of the community that require access to it. And, like the world community, this requirement is constantly evolving. It is not improbable that we will begin to see multilingual publishing continue to flourish as more and more organisations begin to realise just how valuable it is to offer multilingual content and/or media. There is a good article on this subject here: http://www.translationservices-uk.com/Translation-Services-Global.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxwellPN (talk • contribs) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

21st Century Benchmarks versus Groupthink

Where's the problem with public domain entries? Spam, or even Vandalism, are bent arguments and feeble excuses in the case of public domain resources. On the contrary, this is exactly where the core problem of Groupthink becomes relevant within this Translation article as a whole, therefore the B-Class quality rating from Wikipedia:

"Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During Groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking."

The Language Grid is a new public domain infrastructure on the top of the Internet (see also Grid Computing) that aims to improve the accessibility and usability of existing language services and so encourage users to create new language services that suit their needs.

• Language Grid Association
• Collaborative Translation: Language Grid (Creative Commons License) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.98.89 (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Include this one under the category 21st Century Benchmarks too: V-Commuting: The Next Frontier In Global Workforce Management Lionbridge Quality Best Practice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.98.89 (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What I would recommend is that you write/create an article about the Language Grid Association and/or its product, and link to it from the translation page in the "See also" section. As it stands, the section you added and was subsequently removed called "21st Century Benchmarks" appears to be an attempt to promote a specific technology. I say "appears," and I mean to assume good faith. Promotion may not have been your goal, but you have not established wp:notability through reliable third-party sources. I don't think the disparaging references to "B-class quality rating" are necessary. I, for one, am happy whenever someone tries to improve this article, I just don't see how the text you added does so.

p.s. From this link [1], it appears that you may be the same person as User:Eurominuteman, who was once blocked from editing wikipedia for disruptive edits to this very page. Your immediate hostility and accusations of "groupthink" reinforce my suspicions. If this is a case of mistaken identity, I do apologize, but if you are the same person, I hope you have not returned to be disruptive again. maxsch (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Groupthink is the actual authentic source of negative disruption and vandalism. And you know it exists. The archives of this article are full of it.

Public domain links, like public domain Associations (Language Grid Association) in the Associations list, do not need to be re-packaged into another category of links by writing an extra article. Creative Common License ones neither. Otherwise, you would need to dissolve the other traditional Association links under the Associations category too, by concluding fully to the end and implementing your recommendation. Your recommendation is part of your self-defeating Groupthink approach, and has no benefit.

You guys deserve a C-Class rating for trying build a wall around your Groupthink. In the ultimate final, you were not able to fool the Wikipedia peers from a content and a factual viewpoint. Today's status is: A-Class rating for importance, B-Class rating for quality... for a fairly long time already.

By the way, we happen to be living in the 21st century, and not in an extension of other centuries of the past, which is actively promoted by you guys as such, and as one would conclude after reading the article in the B-Class rating format. Grid Computing is 21st century (used by CERN, the creator of WWW, and other research facilities) and the Language Grid (applied in a group of research facilities, like Kyoto University in Japan) is 21st century, and both are displayed in public domain links. Fact is fact. It is not an abstract or commercial category. I recommend that you try using the General Category "21st Century Benchmarks" as a straightforward solution for your B-Class rating problem instead of trying bend your way around it, as governed by your underlying principle "Don't Invent Anything New". Your approach strategy is simply inconsistent with an A-Class rating for quality. As a heretic (hehe, I agree being called one) that's not my problem. Being a heretic is actually not disruptive as assumed in the context behind the Groupthink walls - what a myth, see Disruptive Technology.

In this Translation article, there is a lack of insight for positive disruption due to Groupthink walling. You guys wrote an article for a different century, not for Translation in the 21st century. I recommend that you change the general main title at the top to Translation Basics before the 21st century, and put it as a link reference in a complete newly structured article for Translation. It does not represent Translation as a whole. You Groupthink guys are evidently not the supreme information gatekeepers of Translation.

I think the Groupthink walling vandals will keep to their ways, and even keep to rejecting facts put forward under heretic dissent by deploying all reality-bending tricks in the book:

"Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During Groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.232.190 (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Higher GA/A/F-Class Quality Ratings Are Just Not Happening! Why?

How are you guys intending to handle a B-Class quality rating? Existing in a reduced quality rating is not the objective.

How are you guys going to embrace an A-Class rating format for quality? It hasn't happened up to now.

A. Preventing Groupthink

1. Leaders should assign each member the role of “critical evaluator”. This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts.

2. Higher-ups should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.

3. The organization should set up several independent groups, working on the same problem.

4. All effective alternatives should be examined.

5. Each member should discuss the group's ideas with trusted people outside of the group.

6. The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.

7. At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil's advocate. This should be a different person for each meeting.

B. Re-Structure the title to "Translation Basics before the 21st Century", and re-link accordingly as recommended above.

C. Add "Research" as category

D. Reduce the rating to C-Class in order to counteract against Groupthink inactivity.

E. Stop limiting the translation focus to "Pushing the Bike Pedals Only", include "Holding the Handlebars" and "Looking at the Roadmap".

Social psychologist Clark McCauley identifies three conditions under which groupthink occurs:

- Directive leadership.

- Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.

- Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.

Valid 21st Century Benchmarks

E1. Traditional Translation processes (Gutenberg, Taylorism),

Lionbridge Best Practices: Reasons for No Sample Translations, furthermore Lack of Terminology Guide, Lack of Style Guides (Author, Translator), and Lack of Language Register Guides, Lack of Subtitling, Lack of Transcription...even Lack of Translation Memory... simply walled from other categories that are not Literary. This is not Translation for a professional encyclopedia. Change the name of this article to "Literary Translation before the 21st Century" as a sub-link to "Translation", which then contains a full scope of categories.

TAUS: The End of Old School Localization Thinking

TAUS Best Practices

E2. Collaborative Translation processes (Cybernetics),

Common Sense Advisory: Collaborative Translation

Web 2.0: Use of wikis and blogs in Translation processes,

Google Trends: Collaboration, Wiki, Blog, Convergence, Translation,

Lionbridge Best Practices: V-Commuting - The Next Frontier

E3. Collaborative Google Translation Center processes (imminently upcoming, MT+Crowdsourcing+TM, Cybernetics),

Google Translation Center

It must be noted that Machine Translation is on the List of emerging technologies ranked as a new and potentially Disruptive Technology (this sentence is merely a summary of Wiki sources, which has been censored by the Groupthinkers). National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST Open Machine Translation (MT) Evaluations are performed annually since 2001. Based on the Bilingual Evaluation Understudy method for rating translation accuracy, Google scored first place in a 2005 evaluation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology evaluation.

New structural approach MT + Crowdsourcing + Web 2.0 Translation Memory: Within the enhanced structural implementation MT under the higher-grade cybernetic conditions of Crowdsourcing, as underway in the imminent rollout of Google Translation Center, 2008-09-02 TAUS writes: Helping Google Help the World

E4. Collaborative Language Grid processes (upcoming, Convergence, Second-order cybernetics).

Language Grid derived from Grid Computing

"Pushing the Bike Pedals Only" will never achieve A-Class rating format. A professional encyclopedia demands more. Showing how to chew around on single words is not the big picture and the full scope of Translation for a professional encyclopedia. Groupthink walling in this context will never deliver the required format. Even the lack of Research & Development as category up to now is strategically symptomatic for the missing gaps yet to be uncovered. Groupthinkers notoriously avoid new paradigms and scapegoat others as disruptors (better heretics) in order to maintain their outdated information gatekeeper function. The strategic restructuring of the cybernetic order will not be counteracted by Tricky Dick wording on the part of Groupthinkers. Your approach strategy is simply inconsistent with an A-Class rating for quality, and a threat for other translators by downplaying the gravity of structural changes.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.154.240 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Does anyone besides Mr/Ms. Anonymous IP Address want to address this? I've been going over the article and I can't see any obvious gaps or serious problems; most of the article is pretty clearly written, though there's a little more redundancy between the intro section and some of the detail sections than I would like, and there are some misguided links to irrelevant pages or disambig pages (some of which I've just fixed); e.g. several links of ecological niche in a metaphorical sense for words' role within a particular language, where the linked-to article is all about biology and says nothing about semantics. What problems or gaps in coverage did the person who assigned the B-class quality rating have in mind? --Jim Henry (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, for a little background, Mr/Ms anonymous editor used to go by the name User:Eurominuteman and he was blocked for repeated 3RR violations and general disruptiveness here on the translation page (see here[2] for a little overview). This all happened about a year ago, and I am not sure what triggered this sudden return. He seems bent on ignoring consensus (in fact, on insulting consensus) toward some incomprehensible bureaucratic babble. I plan to ignore him this time unless he expresses a genuine willingness to listen and collaborate. As far as the B-rating, I don't actually know when this article was last assessed. I tend to think it deserves better. maxsch (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All above links and recommendations are valid fact. So stop trying to play the same old game as Groupthinker Maxschmelling again. You always have had your problems with Heretics. I tend to think you are not quite qualified to produce a B-Class rating format. I mean the B-Class rating is fact, you've been B-Class rating for a long time, about a year.

B-Class means, "No reader should be left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style and related style guidelines". After uncovering the significant gaps on the traditional level in item E1 above, this does not actually apply. Traditional scope and 21st century content benchmarks are completely missing for Translation, less for Prose-Focused Literary Translation prior to the 21st Century.

So why didn't the upper GA-/A-/F-Class rating formats actually happen? "Pushing the Bike Pedals Only" didn't work. When was the last time you looked at the assessment scale? You would have seen the following upper levels, meaning "Holding the Handlebars" and "Reading the Roadmap":

GA-Class rating (Good Article Capability): Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equaling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.

This article is not approaching the quality of a professional encyclopedia. Content is weak and missing, as listed from E1 to E4 above. Valid scientific material (as referred to under E3 above) is deliberately and repeatedly being blocked and vandalized without delivering concrete reasoning. These risks need to be mitigated and eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.72.245 (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class rating: Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.

F-Class rating (Feature Capability): Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.

This is the target format. So pointing to the required assessment scale of Wikipedia and matching the missing content is very collaborative. I don't need more.

Maxsch, for the sake of helping you to avoid making things ridiculous, please align and focus yourself to the requirements management of Wikipedia instead of fiddling in self-purpose, there is no way around this level of consensus.

Change the Article Title to "Literary Translation before the 21st Century"

For those Groupthinkers focused on fiddling in self-purpose and walling on Heretic responses, please be knowledgeable about the requirements management of a C-Class quality rating in order to be aware of the contrast to the higher grade ratings of Wikipedia:

C-Class rating: Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.

I tend to think this article has advanced to a stage between C and B. Fiddling in self-purpose and Groupthink needs to be overcome in order to advance further or even to remain a B-Class rating quality article. The risk of dropping to C-Class rating is evident:

It is not a good sign if valid scientific data from a series of assessments regarding Machine Translation is repeatedly blocked, like those references under E3 above, without delivering adequate detailed response, at least in the spirit of Wikipedia's assessment scale. Else de facto, your intentions would be to form Wikipedia to take the role of the Heretic.

Better, change the name of this article to "Literary Translation before the 21st Century" as a sub-link to "Translation", which then contains a full scope of categories.

I mean as far as I am concerned, go ahead and request a new Wikipedia assessment. Really do it, but don't be surprised if the rating drops in the light of the uncovered material and the prevailing Groupthink behaviors. [from the Heretic]

Where is the Research category?

Where is the problem here, Groupthinkers? ..."Don't Invent Anything New" again? [from the Heretic] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.38.219 (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

R&D

• Wiki-Translation.com (Creative Commons License)
• Language Translation, R&D Magazine Search Query
• National Institute of Standards and Technology: NIST Open Machine Translation (MT) Evaluation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.6.132 (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with / limitations of machine translation

Claude Piron discusses the limitations of machine translation in his Le Defi des Langues (L'Harmattan, 1994). I could introduce a brief cite from him to the effect that machine translation automates the relatively easy part of a translator's job, leaving the hard part (doing research to resolve ambiguities in the source text) unaffected. Do y'all think that would be appropriate here, or should it go in the other article on machine translation? --Jim Henry (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The citation you describe seems to make a point similar to what appears in both those articles. I would be open to consideration of its addition to both, including the "Translation" article's "Machine translation" section. Nihil novi (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the potentials also clear? see List of emerging technologies (disruptive ones include machine translation, of course)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.38.219 (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST Open Machine Translation (MT) Evaluations are performed annually since 2001. Based on the Bilingual Evaluation Understudy method for rating translation accuracy, Google scored first place in a 2005 evaluation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology evaluation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.154.240 (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In the enhanced structural implementation MT under the higher-grade cybernetic conditions of Crowdsourcing, as underway in the imminent rollout of Google Translation Center: 2008-09-02 TAUS writes: Helping Google Help the World —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.72.245 (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis, Blogs, Google Translation Center

Why go so far to jump around on machine translation. Wikis and blogs have already matured as a disruptive technology. What about collaborative translation wikis, like [3] Wiki-Translation.com ? By the way, this article is a Wiki with all of its inherent disruptive potential.

Google Trends: Wiki, Blog, Translation

And Google Translation Center is just around the corner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.38.219 (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC) web translate

"Formal equivalence" equates to "metaphrase,"

"Formal equivalence" equates to "metaphrase," and "dynamic equivalence"—to "paraphrase."

Is that so? Wiktionary defines "metaphrase" as a literal word-for-word translation; my understanding of formal equivalence is that it's not so restrictive. Or rather, "literal" is used with a range of meanings in this context, the most extreme sense being maybe synonymous with "metaphrase" but most of the other senses not so. --Jim Henry (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe those terms are specifically associated with the theoretician Eugene Nida, and are used in the sense he gives them. Formal equivalence is an equivalence in the form of the text, and dynamic equivalence an equivalence in its effect. Word-for-word ia a problematic notion because different languages have different grammar, and a one word for one word approach can often produce nonsense. Formal and dynamic equivalence are not necessarily separate approaches, they are simply two ways to describe the poles of sometimes contradictory goals. Maybe it shouldn't say "equates" to metaphrase (maybe something like "correlates" instead), but I do think the relationship is properly represented. maxsch (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well put. Word-for-word (verbum-pro-verbo) "literality," as so often with concepts, at a "subatomic" level becomes much less well-defined than it appears to be when viewed more superficially. We are indeed dealing here with a spectrum of approaches. Nihil novi (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection and resolution

The translation page has been semiprotected at my request. IP sockpuppets of a blocked user were pushing a particular point of view (a point of view, moreover, that I don't find particularly comprehensible) against consensus. If Eurominuteman wants to discuss the translation article in a level-headed and non-confrontational manner, I, for one, am willing to engage. But since he was blocked for the very same kind of behavior he has started to re-exhibit, I feel that the onus is on him to start making sense before I waste time engaging with him. maxsch (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. Factual evidence from expert translation conferences (and other resource links) have been presented that support his arguments. The present Translation article does not reflect 21st century benchmark and state-of-art expert discussion as required by Wikipedia. These resources are easily understood. You are faking your incapacity to understand them. You are abusing the sockpuppet argument to avoid response, and you remain without relevant arguments and response to the core structural and content matter. You also remain without response as how to progress upwards in Wikipedia's quality assessment scale away from B-Class rating. It is fully valid and non-detrimental to point to this quality scale in order to build and present argumentation. His contributions are fully aligned to Wikipedia's policy. All of the staged and scammed actions against him (due to missing knowledge about detail intricacies of Wikipedia's processes) need to be reversed, including the banning mentioned. Pointing to the intricacies of detail Wikipedia processes on your part does not outweigh the factual matter presented. You have the obligation as based on your accepted Wikipedia registration terms to handle state-of-art expert conferences (and other presented resources) without trying the loophole your way around the core structure and content discussion of a quality encyclopedia. For this reason, this present article deserves C-Class quality rating. Groupthink resistance is not the consensus and quality behavior envisioned by Wikipedia.

--78.50.209.60 (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How true. Where is the consensus from an expert conference viewpoint? This article needs complete re-compositioning. Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During Groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking.

--78.48.134.1 (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Research & Development was removed again, haaw haaw haaw. Dont' invent anything new Maxsch, haaw haaw haaw. --78.48.131.21 (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Technical vs. literary translation?

I understand very little of what Eurominuteman says. But it seems to me that, underneath all that hard-to-parse jargon-laden verbiage, he may have a valid point: the article does tend to talk at greater length about literary translation than about technical translation, and perhaps should say more about the latter. I know very little about the latter subject, except for a brief stint working on localization of messages, menu items, etc. in software, so I'm not competent to write much about it without doing further research. And Eurominuteman's additions along those lines keep getting rightfully reverted because they're as incoherent as his talk page comments. But sooner or later someone competent in the area (and also competent to write coherent text) should write something more about technical translation and how it differs from general-purpose and literary translation. --Jim Henry (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel like there used to at least be a section called "Technical translation." I'm not sure what became of it or whether that is just in my head. And I do agree that the article tends to be focused much more on the literary than on the technical. Of course, theories of translation tend to be more interested in literary translation. But it would not be a bad idea at all to have a technical translation section. I don't think that is what eurominuteman is on about. I think he is talking about emerging translation technology(ies) and how they are changing the role and status of translation practitioners. I also think there could be useful content there, but I am resistant to his desire to relegate the rest of the article to somehow lesser status while he glorifies "grid computing" and 21st century whatever. maxsch (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You have over-inflated the boundary lines of Literary Translation to encompass all of Translation in a monopolizing manner. This is not consistent with Wikipedia's quality assessment scale and not consistent with contemporary expert translation conference agendas. The URL Translation needs to be protected from this behavior. --78.49.32.64 (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't come off as too nihilistic, but translation is translation, and I don't know that much is to be gained by reverting to the previous presentation of minuscule sections on, say, technical translation, religious translation, horticultural translation, history translation, financial translation, etc., ad nauseam. But I am convinced of one thing: Eurominuteman needs to be blocked again. Nihil novi (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from your Groupthink remarks and behaviors and return to Wikipedia's assessment scale as a level of consensus. I enjoy being a Heretic by the way. --78.49.32.64 (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

True, I am not talking about literary translation. I noticed the difference later after our first clash. The last clash was focussed around Causa Finalis versus Causa Efficiens and Collaborative Processing versus Hierarchial Processing. This has industrial focus. Only about 5% of what is translated is literary. So none of these issues has experienced loss as factual matter, but I saw that you had introduced an article about Translation and Legal Equivalence in the first case, in the second case Collaborative Translation has further matured in the Common Sense Advisory article, a #1 international consulting group in the translation industry. The Quality Best Practices of big Global Players like Lionbridge etc. are based on their consulting.

Did you guys really take time to read the indicated resources yet? They were written by people other than me... Of course, these resources need to be fully read in order to relate to what I am writing about. This is pre-requisite in order to understand in retrospect.

Social psychologist Clark McCauley identifies three conditions under which Groupthink occurs:

- Directive leadership.

- Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.

- Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.

Do you know who are the 25 biggest translation companies in the world? I have an up-to-date list from Common Sense Advisory. Do you know what is being talked about at big professional translation conferences? Take a look... 49th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. You will find that Common Sense Advisory is talking about Collaborative Translation (which is organic, and not technologically mechanical), for example. This conference agenda covers the big picture boundary lines of Translation, by the way. Literary is ranked as specialization, and is not the monopolizing entity for the boundary lines of Translation. And then these ones: 1st International Conference on Translation/ Interpretation & the Impact of Globalization, Univer-Cities, and 8th Portsmouth Translation Conference: The changing face of translation, Translating and the Computer 30 Conference, the structure of URL Translation has no resemblance to what others are focussing on. Call it a lack of encyclopedic fidelity, transparency, and equivalence.

So why isn't a Wikipedia A-Class rating unfolding? Why was the introduction of R&D, a long missing gap, taking so long, and almost like pulling a tooth to get introduced? You haven't offered much to solve this jump upwards, except to say, you don't understand what others are saying, and the old way is always right.. the old way is always right... the old way is always right... scapegoat the information and change management heretics... and avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking... This is not an A-Class quality rating format as a response.

E.g. how about talking about Modern Translation Marketing (in an Buyer's Market) versus Traditional Translation Marketing (in a Seller's Market) in order to uncover some sociological contingencies, as to why the boundary lines of Translation have experienced a change (e.g. to segmented market niches in response to a Buyer's market). You just can't wall the definition of Translation within in your self-purpose boundary lines, and expect to be treated as a professional encyclopedic article with A-Class rating.

Disregarding Wikipedia's requirements for professional encyclopedic quality is not the way. Trying to be the heros and saviors of the old boundary lines of Literary Translation is nice, but it is not the big picture of Translation. Wikipedia wants contributions and verifications from cutting-edge 21st century benchmark people like NIST, Lionbridge, TAUS, Google Translation Center, Language Grid, Professional Translation Conferences, and Common Sense Advisory in order to be a A-Class rating article, it is clearly specified. --78.49.32.64 (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I need to summarize, gentlemen:

This article is not approaching the quality of a professional encyclopedia. Content is weak and missing, as listed from E1 to E4 above. Now more items have been identified (lack of genuine reading, analysis, and evaluation behavior; as well as a lack of knowledge of the structure of the expert conference agenda above) throughout the discussions held. Valid scientific material (as referred to under E3 above) is deliberately and repeatedly being blocked and vandalized without delivering concrete reasoning. These risks need to be mitigated and eliminated.

Furthermore, those displaying Groupthink behavior are not knowledgeable about up-to-date Translation expert discussions, research and developments, and are abusing the URL Translation for their self-purposed, in part respectable, Literary heroics. These process and information management risks need to be mitigated and eliminated.

As a result, the present structure and processes practiced within the URL Translation are unfortunately a mess, and do not reflect the expert status and format needed to comply with upward progress on Wikipedia's quality assessment scales. --78.55.161.207 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for an Action Plan:

1. Statement of Willingness and Commitment against Groupthink and against any other attitudes, behaviors, and actions, which are non-consistent to Wikipedia's quality assessment scales

2. Create a contemporary overview of expert Translation conference agendas in order to extract a legitimate overview structure for URL Translation. ConferenceAlerts.com

3. Establish ways and means of participation on expert Translation conferences (Virtual Translation Conference, live)

4. Create a consensus for such a legitimate overview structure of URL Translation. (Change Management: Later peer review and adaptation should be performed in intervals in order to respond to new amendments and weighting within the Translator community as observed within such conference agendas)

5. Implement the resulting URL re-structuring. --78.55.161.207 (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Cosmetic Change vs Structural Change

"Split" is not specific enough. This could also mean a cosmetic change, which does not comply with the the major structural deviances as compared to expert conference agendas. This article needs a major structural change in order reflect these mentioned agendas, and be capable for an upwards movement on Wikipedia's quality scale. Wikipedia's quality scale is the relevant alignment for any action plans or measures, fiddling around in self-purpose does not deliver this level of capability maturity.

Here is another example of such an up-to-date agenda, which is completely lacking in this article:

WikiSym 2008: The International Symposium on Wikis: Papers Wiki and Language

Check it out... it happened in Lisabon on 2008-09-07

--78.52.185.163 (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Emily Wilson: “And most one-person bands do not sound very good.”

Prince, one of the most celebrated pop artists of the twentieth century, winner of seven Grammy Awards, played every instrument on a remarkable number of his own albums and on others’ albums as well. Beck, winner of seven Grammy Awards, plays every instrument on his albums. Anton Newcombe, one of the most beloved independent musicians alive, plays every instrument on his albums. These are but three examples.

Until someone replies to this note with specific examples to the contrary (the number of awful one-person bands would have to be at least four), my contention is:

This observation by Emily Wilson is drivel and unsuitable for the high standards of this page.

Kakostratos (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted that final sentence from the quotation.

Thanks for your comment.

Nihil novi (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

totally not the Purple Rain tour.

I don't agree. The OP is deliberately misrepresenting what a one-man band is: one person, preforming as a band, all at once. Prince didn't put a bass drum on his back and cymbals on his feet or whatever, he had the Revolution, and later the New Power Generation, then 3rdeyegirl (then NPG again later) backing him up. Beck had to recruit The Flaming Lips to be his band at one point so that it was even possible to preform live on Austin City Limits and other venues in the early 2000's. These are not one man bands, they are multi-instrumentalists. This complaint is therefore without merit. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I agree, and said something similar in some edits that have now been deleted from the talk page history. Let's just say that the OP is motivated more by an off-wiki disagreement with Wilson than a desire to improve this article. MrOllie (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie, that is correct, and if you don't mind, and you don't either, Beeblebrox and Nihil novi, I'm just going to move this to the archive. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)