Professional Translators Against Crowdsourcing and Other Unethical Business Practices

Williamson wrote:

Any idea why Adobe has crowdsourced most of its translations?

Krzysztof Kajetanowicz wrote:

This letter is absolutely ludicrous. In a while I haven't read something that would sooo miss the point.

How about protesting against people baking their own bread? After all, bakers have spent years learning their trade. In some countries they're even licensed.

How about taking down Wikipedia, a project built on this ugly 'crowdsourcing' entirely? After all, being a scientist is not a hobby - it's years of sweat and tears to obtain that PhD, shouldn't it be compulsory for Wikipedia to buy its content from the best graduates of selected universities?

Now seriously. What sense does it make to sign petitions on how a private business obtains its inputs? It's not like they hire 12-year-old children or spill sewage in rivers. They ask users to help translate. This has no ill effect on anyone except for people who want money for something that can be obtained free.

If the translation is bad, it is the site that suffers. The site has private owners who can ruin it as much as they want.

If the translation is good, that is a reason for some of us to think if we should perhaps specialise more, so we don't have to compete with amateurs at zero rates, or switch profession altogether.

No offense but the letter reads like something spawned by a child. Not in terms of langugage. In terms of content. Not only will translators gain nothing but upon reading of that petition people might consider us insane. Absolute rubbish.

[Edited at 2009-12-18 15:13 GMT]

Jon O wrote:

Fully agree, if anything this ludicrous petition is an embarrassment to the industry. The fact it's on Facebook says it all. Ridiculous stuff.

[Edited at 2009-12-18 18:59 GMT]

Jon O wrote:

The fact it's on Facebook says it all.

[Edited at 2009-12-18 18:59 GMT]

David Russi wrote:

In my view the real problem has to do with what this says in terms of how our work is perceived on the web: its value is minimal and it does not have to be paid for. Coupled with the bad machine translation engines out there, the notion that a translator is superfluous because there are other (read: free) ways to turn stuff into another languages is accepted, and I do think that as professionals we have the right to show our indignation. Sure, a bad result might mean a lesson learned, but a mediocre one might be acceptable (for free); after all, who cares, it's just another language.

Will we stop the practice by voicing our opinion against it? Probably not, but I do not think silence will help. Are you OK with crowdsourcing? Fine, just sit it out, or, better yet, plunge in a help out all these poor corporations that need to have their material translated for free.

paula13 wrote:

Whether we agree on this petition or not, I think we can all agree that it is in our best interest to fight off the market trends that tend to lower our rates and to create awareness of the importance of quality translation in both the public and private sector.

Crowdsourcing is only going to force you to lower your rates if you place yourself in a position where you appear to be in direct competition with crowdsourced translations.

By protesting vociferously, you are effectively putting your services on the same level as crowdsourced work, even though this is not really comparing like with like.

For example, your own profile suggests you are good at medical and legal translations, two high-priced, high-risk areas in which crowdsourcing is probably not the best option if the client is looking for a bulletproof target version. You're probably not even at risk of losing very much business.

Crowdsourcing is fashionable at the moment. I'm sure lots of our potential customers will be trying it on for size but quite honestly, any half decent translator ought to be able to provide a better service in his or her specialist areas, with much shorter lead times, at prices that make financial sense to the end client.

paula13 wrote:

@Giles:

Hi Giles,

Thanks for your feedback. I think you made some really strong points.

You wrote:



I agree, however, in my experience many translators are already lowering their rates as a result of the devaluation of our work in several industry sectors, and as David pointed out, that has a lot to do with the way in which our work is perceived.

That is one way to look at it. The way I'm looking at it is a) I'm getting people to talk about crowdsourcing and share different views and if we all keep an open mind about each other's opinions, I think something really great can come out if this discussion. b) We're making a statement. If enough people sign this petition (given how onlinepetition works) we could get enough exposure and coverage to raise some awareness about the potentially negative effects of crowdsourcing.

I would like to think my risk of losing business is low. In fact, I haven't lost any business yet, but given some of the public announcements made by several giant corporations (which I have mentioned previously in this thread), I'm not so sure that can't happen further down the road.

I'm a third year law student, by the time enough corporations resort to crowdsourcing so much that translators start losing work (if that ever happens), I'll already be a lawyer and will probably have a different source of income. But is that a reason not to try to prevent the worst case scenario from ever coming true?

I really hope you're right and I admire your positive outlook on this issue! But when CAT tools first came out many people didn't see a threat there either.

So make sure *your* (not "our" - we all work in different markets) work is not perceived as interchangeable with any of the zero-cost options

I'm ignoring crowdsourcing. My current clients aren't interested either because in the present shrinking consumer market (for wine, in my case) they are striving to add value to unit sales, which have only a limited margin for expansion. They want copy that is effective, whether or not it is cheap, and they want it now, not in a crowdsourced timescale.

We're looking at very different markets from very different perspectives: I earned my first fees for translation in 1975 and have no inclination to study for the bar Honestly, I don't see crowdsourcing as a threat to my income, or to yours for that matter.

I really hope you're right and I admire your positive outlook on this issue! But when CAT tools first came out many people didn't see a threat there either.

I have never seen CAT tools as a threat, quite the reverse. CAT tools were one of the main reasons why I went freelance back in the early 90s (the other reason was growth of the world wide web). CATs enable you to take client, heritage translation and terminology management to levels that were unthinkable when a typewriter was the non plus ultra of translation technology. Although like most people I started out working for agencies, and I have to say that some were excellent, it was never my intention to stay that way.

Hedwig Lugaro wrote:

I agree with David and Laurent.

Besides, they do hire, paying salaries and benefits... so I wonder, why they don't hire transaltors?
For instance, Facebook is currently hiring for the following departments:
(...)

Sunny and warm greetings!