1887
Volume 2021, Issue 3- Tenth International Translation Conference
  • EISSN: 2223-506X

Abstract

The rise of machine translation and translation memories along with the technologies of the Web 2.0 have brought about new flavours and workflows, setting new challenging research pathways for translation studies. Emerging crowdsourcing-based models have been presented as mainstream approaches in the translation industry. Therefore, exploring the newborn approaches and processes is a priority for translation studies for better insights and further understanding of relevant impacts that may reach the stage of deprofessionalizing the discipline and marginalizing the profession.

To pursue this question, the present paper explores a unique and interesting model of translation that is both crowdsourced and collaborative, the non-profit organization or . does not only resort to crowdsourcing to provide humanitarian translation services on pro-bono basis but also maintains a global network of volunteers and deploys a fully fledged environment for translation management as well as quality assurance and control. This paper demonstrates the array of processes adopted by to manage quality and the myriad of challenges it presents. Through model study, this paper investigates the way various theoretical concepts are confronting the industry realities and implications and examines the extent of dynamicity and tolerance thresholds in the application of such concepts.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2021.tii.4
2021-07-07
2021-08-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/connect/2021/3/connect.2021.tii.4.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2021.tii.4&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. European Commission. Studies on translation and multilingualism: Crowdsourcing translation. Belgium: Publications Office EU; 2012.
  2. Howe J. Typepad.com [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2021 January 05]. Available from: https://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/cs/2006/06/crowdsourcing_a.html.
  3. Brabham D. Crowdsourcing. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Howe J. Crowdsourcing: Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. New York: Crown Publishing Group; 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Alonso O, Lease M. Crowdsourcing 101: putting the WSDM of crowds to work for you. In Proceedings of the Forth International Conference on Web Search and Web Data Mining, WSDM 2011 [conference proceedings on the Internet]; 2011 February 9-12; Hong Kong, China. Available from: URL: ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/221520184_Crowdsourcing_101_putting_the_WSDM_of_crowds_to_work_for_you.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brabham D. Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. 2008; 14:(1):75-90.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Kleemann, F., Voß, G. G., & Rieder, K. Un (der) paid innovators: The commercial utilization of consumer work through crowdsourcing. STI Studies. July 2008; 4:(1): 6-26.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Mazzola D., Distefano A. Crowdsourcing and the participation process for problem solving: the case of BP. ITAIS 2010 [Internet]. ItAIS; 2010 [cited 18 June 2021]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260034103_Crowdsourcing_and_the_participation_process_for_problem_solving_the_case_of_BP
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Estellés E, Navarro-Giner R, Guevara FGL. Crowdsourcing: Definition and typology. In: Garrigos-Simon GPEM, editor. Advances in crowding. Springer International Publishing; 2015. pp. 33–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Jiménez-Crespo MA. Crowdsourcing and online collaborative translations. John Benjamins; 2017.
  11. O'Hagan M. Community translation: Translation as a social activity and its possible consequences in the advent of Web 2.0 and beyond. Linguistica Antverpiensia. 2011; (10)::11–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. O'brien S. Collaborative translation. In: Verela CM, Bartrina F, editors. Routledge handbook of translation studies. London: Routledge; 2011. pp. 17–20.
  13. Désilets A, Van De Meer J. Co-creating a repository of best-practices for collaborative translation. Linguistica Antverpiensia. 2011; (10)::11–27.
  14. Flanagan M. Cause for concern? Attitudes towards translation crowdsourcing in professional translator’s blogs. Jostrans: The Journal of Specialized Translation. 2016;(25):149–173.
  15. Olohan M. Why do you translate? Motivation to volunteer and TED translation. Translation Studies. 2014; 7:(1):17–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. O'Hagan M. Evolution of user-generated translation: Fansubs, translation hacking and crowdsourcing. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization. 2009; 1:(4):94–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dombek M. A study into the motivations of internet users contributing to translation crowdsourcing: The case of Polish Facebook user translators [PhD thesis]. Dublin: Dublin City University; 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Allen HJ. Post-editing or no post-editing? International Journal for Languge and Documentation. 2001;41–42.
  19. O'Brien S, Mitchell L, Roturier J. Quality evaluation in community post-editing. Machine Translation. 2004;28:237–262.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Tatsumi M, Aikawa T, Yamamoto K, Isahara H. How good is crowd post-editing: Its potential and limitations. AMTA-2012; 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Vasconcellos M, Leon M. SPANAM and ENGSPAN: Machine Translation at the Pan American Health Organization. Computational Linguistic. 1985; 11:(2–3):122–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Allen JH. Post-editing. In: Somers H, editor. Computers and translations: A translator’s guide. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2003. pp. 297–317.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. TAUS. TAUS post-editing guidelines. 2016. Available from: https://www.taus.net/think-tank/articles/postedit-articles/taus-post-editing-guidelines.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. DePalma D. Post-editing in practice. tcworld magazine. 2013 December.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. House J. Quality in translation studies. In: Millan C, Batrina F, editors. Routledge handbook of translation studies. New York-London: Routledge; 2013. pp. 534–547.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. O'Brien S. Towards a dynamic quality evaluation model for translation. Jostrans. 2012;17:55–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kockaert HJ, Makoushina J. Zen and the art of quality assurance quality assurance automation in translation: Needs, reality and expectations. Thirtieth International Conference on Translating and the Computer. London: Aslib/IMI; 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Czopik J. Quality assurance process in translation. Translating and the computer 36. Geneva: Editions Tradulex; 2014. pp. 77–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. ASQ. https://asq.org/ [Internet]. [cited 2021 January 10]. Available from: https://asq.org/quality-resources/quality-assurance-vs-control.
  30. ISO. ISO 9000: Quality management systems — Fundamentals and vocabulary. 3rd ed. Geneva: ISO; 2005.
  31. Translators Without Borthers (TWB). https://translatorswithoutborders.org/ [Internet]. [cited 2021 January 03]. Available from: https://translatorswithoutborders.org/about-us/.
  32. Zetzsche J. Translators without borders technology. The ATA Chronicle. 2017 July/August:27–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Thicke L. Translators without borders: A community translating to save lives. The ATA Chronicle. 2015 Nov/Dec.:9–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. TWB. https://elearn.translatorswb.org/ [Internet]. [cited 2021 Januray 12]. Available from: https://elearn.translatorswb.org/course/view.php?id=5M.
  35. Valdeon RA. Translating informative and persuasive texts. Perspectives Studies in Translatology. 2009; 17:(2):77–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mesipuu M. Translation crowdsourcing and user-translator motivation at Facebook. Translation Spaces. 2012; 1:(1):33–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Désilets A. Translation wikified: How will massive online collaboration impact the world of translation? Proceedings of Translation and the Computer 29;2007.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. [Google Scholar]
  39. TWB. community.translatorswb.org [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021 January 12]. Available from: https://community.translatorswb.org/t/about-the-kato-tm-category/194.
  40. Kelly N, Ray R, DePalma DA. From crawling to sprinting: Community translation goes mainstream. Linguistica Antverpiensia. 2011;10:45–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. TWB. community.translatorswb.org [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 January 12]. Available from: https://community.translatorswb.org/t/what-is-the-harmonized-dqf-mqm-error-typology/10827.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. TAUS. http://www.taus.net [Internet]. [cited 2021 January 12]. Available from: https://www.taus.net/qt21-project#dqf-qt21.
  43. Drugan J. Top-down or bottom-up: What do industry approaches to translation quality mean for effective integration of standards and tools? Translating and the Computer 36; 2014; Geneva: Editions Tradulex. pp. 109–117.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2021.tii.4
Loading
/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2021.tii.4
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error