I quit LinkedIn anyway as it did nothing for me professionally, and seemed like a way for already successful people to plump up their credentials even further. I think it is designed as a way for people to register a presence on google / search engines. Thanks for the excellent blog

However, it would be naïve to think that we are somehow benefiting for “free” at their expense. Without all those free subscriptions, the sites themselves would be worth nothing to advertisers (as anyone in marketing communication is no doubt aware), and we don't charge them for that added value. I have not earned a penny myself directly out of my subscription to any social networking site (I see the purpose in it as a vague and incremental increase in visibility).

As for those who wish to work in exchange for a “badge”, I receive dozens of CVs every week (often through contacts on these sites) from people listing various jobs done for free, which I admire, but these in themselves do not give me any reliable measure of their professional aptitude.

I am quite sure CT3 has its uses in a balanced provider/client market, if payment structures can be sorted out, although it appears that CT3 is used mainly for translation of short phrases. Maybe that's what was responsible for this:
http://voxappeal.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/reset...

I've been in marketing communications for 18 years, and I've worked with many translators from all over the world, as well as photographers, videographers, graphic artists and other providers of marketing services… it is EXTREMELY COMMON to be undervalued and low-balled for your services when the value isn't understood.

Social media is just another new type of service that hasn't reached its level of value to the end user yet. Everyone freaks out when they have to pay for anything these days, but the real value is actually the service application… I don't see anyone feeling sorry for Linked In/Facebook/mySpace /etc because they aren't charging for their services. Would you rather pay to use Linked In (granted Linked In and other social media do charge more for above baseline services, but the point is they offer everyone free access… they don't run for free you know) or would you rather have them explore creative ways to use crowdsourcing (or whatever) to make the application widely available to everyone.

In the end you pay for what you get – on both sides.

No one is forcing professional translators to do anything. In the end its an opportunity to give back IF THEY SO CHOOSE.

I predict this movement will backfire.

Here are a few highlights of the findings from this report, written by Donald A. DePalma and Nataly Kelly, that are relevant to the posted discussion:

- Cost savings are not a motivation of CT3. The firm's research found that the companies engaging in this practice do so for three reasons: speed (faster time to market), quality improvement (end-user involvement boosts quality), and reach (a collaborative approach extends global reach through word-of-mouth marketing and community-building).
- Subject-matter experts and actual end users (“customers”) help boost quality. The companies that used CT3 approaches had a vested interested in ensuring quality. For this reason, many had not only translated into a given language, but created regional variations of a language. Thus, Facebook in Spanish (Colombia) uses phrases that are more appropriate for the local users, while Facebook in Spanish (Spain) and Spanish (Mexico) are also localized.
- CT3 is used primarily for short pieces of information. Phrases such as “update my status,” or “add as a connection” are typical examples of phrases that CT3 is well-suited to, since users can “vote” in real-time on which translation they like best. Thus, rather than resort to the typical translation process, in which a single person (editor) has the ability to veto or alter the translation, this gives more people the opportunity to weigh in and participate, giving them a say in what the final translation will be.

Common Sense Advisory has also dispelled the myth of CT3 as a means of “getting something for nothing” in its industry blog, the Global Watchtower. To quote senior analyst Benjamin Sargent,

“When casual observers comment about how getting the users to translate sounds like good business, they are alluding to the bit about it being wink-wink-nudge-nudge “free.” Actually, it costs money to manage work, whether your workers are volunteer or paid. Not to mention, in Facebook’s case, investment in building a collaborative translation capability into the product itself. Free was not the point. Time was. Translations started appearing in days, rather than in the months it otherwise would have taken a vendor to manage, test, and deliver a localized user interface of more than 100,000 words.”

You can read the full entry here: http://www.globalwatchtower.com/2008/08/14/comm...

Individuals interested in learning more can also view an early article on this topic written by Renato S. Beninatto and Donald A. DePalma, as published in Multilingual Computing, at this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4069269/Structuring-C...

Common Sense Advisory's research also shows that the companies that engage in CT3 often employ full-time translators in-house, and they typically also contract with language service providers (LSPs) to perform translations that lend themselves more to the “traditional” translate-edit-proof (TEP) process, such as texts of a legal nature, privacy policies, marketing collateral, and corporate communications. CT3 is usually reserved for the short phrases that are highly unique to a given community – and are usually an important part of its online flavor and culture.

I'm just wondering whether it is worth the while to get upset with this. Just say no, or don't reply at all instead of getting angry or losing time with this. You ask a plumber to fix something for free, s/he goes: “you wish”, and calls it a day. It might be healthier for translators to do the same.

If LinkedIn does not know better, it's their problem. I don't think crowdsourcing will take jobs away from pro translators. Companies going crowdsourcing have not considered paying for translations (at least not at the starting point), so it's either crowdsourcing or no translation at all.

It is interesting that Google and Facebook used crowdsourcing in the beginning then hired pro translators when localized sites gained traction (and I suppose user complaints about translation quality is a form of traction)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY

I've heard of “ad honorem”, pro bono, favors… you can choose the name you like but this kind of requests exists in all professions. One of the 10 questions above asks if they would crowdsource other departments, and yes they would!!
I don't think LinkedIn or any other site expects a great quality from these projects. I myself would translate a bit for a badge, but I wouldn't spend much time on it, or much effort, maybe 30 min to one hour. They know the people who actually agree don't have anything better to do, so that's the quality they'll get.

Thanks for your compliment! I'm slowly starting to post more often.

I would be interesting in reading some of the studies you mention, I have also found that the more I charge my clients (up to a point!!), the more motivated I am to offer better service and the happier they are all round.

I was talking to someone at The Economist about translation a few weeks ago and the subject of shiny badges came up as a possibly useful part of the equation, but certainly not as the only bit or without payment as in this case!

I think companies would do well to court professional tribes – or that part of their existing tribes who have professional skills which could indeed help them – but they must not treat them as random unprofessional hordes.

I would recommend the advice provided by one of my professors who worked in public and entrepreneurial placements. He told us that our work would be more highly valued and students would be more successful, if we provided our services for pay. Our professor provided a variety of research statistics to support this position. Student achievement was higher when parents had a monetary interest in the educational service you provide. I have personally found this to be true and valuable advice.

I could accept some sort of remuneration or trade of services that was comparable in value, yet I am not sure a badge is enough. Often, I receive valuable services in return for my professional support for interactive media. My reasoning is based on the value of services effect on achievement or value by the audience, which affects my value as a professional teacher.