En EspañolCrowdsourcing translations and LinkedIn: a response to the Global Watchtower opinion
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Common Sense Advisory’s Global Watchtower blog has posted an opinion on this week’s LinkedIn translator crowdsourcing debate, but I’m afraid I must disagree with some of the things they say.
To CSA’s declaration that “most language professionals don’t understand CT3″ (collaborative, community, crowdsourcing), I would counter that professional translators can understand so-called CT3 concepts perfectly well and can even see the benefits in some cases but that wasn’t, perhaps unfortunately for all, what LinkedIn was proposing in this case.
LinkedIn’s proposal to professional translators the other day was not: “Would you like to participate in a carefullly controlled CT3 project and edit/control/supervise user interface translations, a professional project for which we will properly compensate you for and to which we expect you to bring an entirely professional attitude?“
LinkedIn’s question was: “What type of incentive would you expect for translating LinkedIn’s site?” (thanks to @morrick for the screenshot).
Again, I don’t think anybody is denying LinkedIn or any other company the right to ask this question or to manage its business in whichever way it sees fit.
New freelancers in every industry are taken advantage of but most of the people who have so far participated in this debate are seasoned professional translators with many years experience who, as far as I can see, have no shortage of well-paying clients who do respect their work and come back for more.
It is precisely the fact that LinkedIn (in this instance) has managed to annoy such a group (who normally couldn’t care less) that is remarkable.
Truly professional translators are more than capable of advising their clients on context and cultural nuance issues: they have been doing so every day for years with their current clients. Many of them on the discussion threads this week have also unwound the notion that community translation projects are quicker just because there are more people trying to translate the texts.
Finally, repeating that ‘cost savings are not a motivation‘ doesn’t make it so. Why? Because that’s what companies told the researcher?
Even if it really was not the primary motivation, it could certainly be a beneficial side effect and CSA itself says that: “Actually, it costs money to manage work, whether your workers are volunteer or paid.“
The management costs might be the same (or similar) but by definition you don’t have to pay volunteers, which means you have a (rather large) cost saving.
I would like to read an explanation of the methodology CSA used to reach such a broad conclusion about the economic motivations of for-profit corporations; I haven’t come across one yet, large or small, which is not interested in some way in cost savings and rightly so as all businesses must make a profit.
I believe for the moment we must remain guarded about such statements from an organisation which openly invites companies to send them press releases for publication and comment.
The questions which professional translators from all over the world have asked and the informed discussion which has taken place this week contain valid, and valuable, thoughts based on years of experience and hundreds if not thousands of real international communication projects which all companies would do well to take into account.
To classify a whole group of seasoned professionals as guarded, undervalued whiners who are incapable of understanding advances in global communications and technology when they work with such issues every day is at the very least condescending.
Matthew Bennett on Facebook
Matthew Bennett on LinkedIn
Matthew's photos on Flickr
Matthew's presentations on Slideshare
Matthew's videos on Viddler
Matthew's videos on YouTube
Matthew,
This is dead on and I'm glad that you wrote a response to CSA's blogpost. The fact is that LinkedIn was not even close to asking for a carefully controlled CT3 project and I commend you for continued coverage on this important matter.
Gabriel Rodino
http://www.linguainc.com
I've got to say that I don't see the problem with the way LinkedIn approached this. I'm pretty surprised by the level of 'fury' and self importance being expressed by some professional translators, though.
A lot of us like to collaborate online. Part of my job is beta-testing and usability-testing websites to ensure they're working correctly when they launch. By your rationale, I ought to be up in arms when I beta-test a website for free. Me, a professional beta tester!
Another part of my job is writing reviews. And yet, I'm happy enough to help for-profit websites out by giving them free UGC in the form of reviews written by me. A professional reviewer!
With all due respect, I think it is these rather shrill complaints that have made websites like CSA refer to those complaining in a condescending manner. In short: if you don't want to help, don't help. If you do, do. But is this really worth making such a fuss about?
Oh, and you haven't mentioned it, but I guess you've cancelled your LinkedIn account. You still have a link to it in your sidebar. >>
Hi Tom,
Of course everyone is quite within their rights to respond how they see fit, as is LinkedIn or any other company to ask any questions they like of their users and decide how they want to run their business based on the results.
And once again, the 'fury' this past week hasn't been about LinkedIn as a concept or a site, just the way they have presented and handled this particular project, which most of the professional translators who have participated in the debate believe shows an enormous amount of disrespect towards them and their work from a networking site for professionals where 'relationships matter'.
Neither has anyone said, as far as I can recall, that they have any problem with beta testing; in fact, we all clicked through to the survey in the first place because it was presented as a 'help us to improve our service' questionnaire.
It seems there have been a few people annoyed enough with LinkedIn as a company, though, to delete their profiles as a result.
As a comparison: would you also be happy to do some of their accounting because you know how to count?
Do you really feel that LinkedIn has shown 'an enormous amount of disrespect' towards you and your fellow translators? I'm sorry but this is exactly what I struggle to understand. Perhaps I'm lacking in empathy (and I like to think that this isn't a failing I normally suffer from), but don't you think that you're over reacting somewhat? I suppose I just find it difficult to see how LinkedIn's idea could have caused such offence.
“…would you also be happy to do some of their accounting because you know how to count?” – but knowing how to count wouldn't qualify me to do accounting work. As I made clear in my comment, writing reviews, editing articles, beta testing websites (and, though I didn't mention it), translating advertising campaigns and user interfaces – these are all aspects of my job. They're things I do 'professionally', by definition.
And I don't feel offended, belittled or slighted when a website asks me if I'd like to help out by doing some of that for free. If I don't want to help (maybe I'm sick of doing work stuff and would rather not do that kind of thing when I get home), then I just don't do it.
Perhaps if I was a freelancer, I'd have a better grip on just how much that free work was worth to me.
The problem with what LinkedIn did was the manner in which they approached us. First, we get an e-mail asking if we'd like to fill out a survey to help them improve their service. Fine, but then we find that it's actually a survey specifically for language professionals. First little bit of deception. Then we find the question referenced above essentially asking professional translators if we'd like to translate their site for free.
Would you not be annoyed if someone approached you as a professional beta tester and asked if you would beta test their site for free? Sure, they offered to give us a badge for our LinkedIn profiles, but the value of that badge is virtually zero if they give it to anyone and everyone who helped out in the translation crowdsourcing project. Perhaps if they had approached me personally, knowing the quality of my work, and offered to give me special recognition for helping out a bit, I might have actually considered it.
Then since the whole debate erupted on Twitter, LinkedIn's reaction has been far from satisfactory. But I won't go into the details of that right now.
I also wanted to say that I received a similar sort of request from Plaxo a while back, but their message was sent out to all users in a given country asking if we'd like to help them translate their site into the language of that country (in my case Italy and Italian). This didn't bother me in slightest because they were targeting all users/fans of their service here, and if Italian were my native language, I may have even considered lending a hand — even being a professional translator — simply because I like(d) their service.
So it's all in the context of what LinkedIn did and how they went about it, not the mere fact that they were thinking of crowdsourcing the translation of their site.
While I agree that no one *owes* us their projects, the lack of respect was in the *wording* of the questionnaire.
It was directed at professionals by a web site for professionals, and yet the list of things one might want in exchange for one's professional services didn't include money.
If that had been an option, I'd have been fine with the whole thing. To relegate professional compensation for professional work to the category of “Other” — usually reserved for bizarre or even unreasonable requests — does show a singular lack of respect for the very concept of professionalism.
Tom, I'm sure you're not lacking in empathy but perhaps I could explain a bit better.
It wasn't just me, you see. I was initially annoyed enough to want to tweet about it and leave it at that. But when I went to do so, I found that a few others had already beaten me to it and they weren't a happy bunch.
Over the next few hours, Twitter lit up with dozens of professional translators tweeting about this, all of them unhappy on a scale ranging from mild annoyance to outraged enough to close their LinkedIn account. From this group of people, that reaction is remarkable.
Then came the suggestion for the LinkedIn group which now has 270 members, several threads and dozens of well-written comments on the subject, which I'm sure everyone has benefited from reading and participating in, whatever point of view they hold personally.
The idea with the original blog post was to summarise all of that activity and tell the story a little. It certainly seemed to strike a chord with many people. If my posts have served to further the discussion more, that's even better.
Do you mean that freelancers are perhaps upset at losing out on piece of the LinkedIn translation budget pie?
If so, after reading all the discussion this week, I wouldn't say that's the case; most people participating seem to have more than enough paid work to be getting on with.
I don't know if you've read all of the discussion on LinkedIn but if you haven't I'd encourage you to take some time to do so, as there's been a lot of great informed debate about the different options too.