Recent Posts View All

Blog - Free Lunches vs. Community Translation

Free Lunches vs. Community Translation

posted 2008-04-24 12:00:57
by Andrew Thomas

My mother always told me that you get what you pay for and there's no such thing as a free lunch. Both expressions point out the hidden cost of "free." That's what concerns me most about the recent AP News article reporting on Facebook's translation crowdsourcing efforts.

First, there's the obvious quality critique. Translators are trained professionals and bring a certain level of quality to any work they do. Certainly some contributors to Facebook's translations may be trained linguists, but the vast majority is comprised of volunteer amateurs (as evidenced by the Spanish example in the article). This is compounded by the lack of technology being used. Without translation memory (or a trained MT engine) or terminology being leveraged, wildly disparate translations for the same content can occur. Second, there's the project management aspect. When the crowd is responsible for delivering crucial content, in this case the very framework of the website itself, how does the company manage the timing of these deliverables? Essentially Facebook is putting its fate into the hands of their users. Some may find this admirable or even consistent with the ideas of a social network, but considering the ad revenues Facebook generates, it seems fiscally irresponsible. Finally, I really loathe the precedent this sets for localization in general. It's one thing for a cash-strapped startup to ponder this kind of process. It's another thing entirely for a profitable business to forego quality translations. It feels similar to the self-service push in commerce. We all too often buy into the rhetoric of convenience, but really we're just freely doing the company's job for them when we bag our own groceries, check our own luggage, or pump our own gas.

I'm not completely negative about community translation (a much better name for these efforts) though. Interestingly enough, it was also a key theme in the recent TAUS meeting in Boston. Adobe gave an overview of their implementation efforts. I think the approach they've taken is much more nuanced and sophisticated. They provide simple style guides and terminology, as well as the Creative Commons legal framework for contributions. Additionally, they focus community translation efforts around additive content that the organization is not dependent on for financial success. They too take a hands-off approach to the translations themselves, providing a supportive framework rather than a controlled process. However, Adobe employees are actively engaged with the community translators.

So in my opinion, there is a place for community translation. However it must be approached carefully and conscientiously. Facebook's model is naive and dangerous for one major reason. It strengthens a long standing misconception that we in the localization industry have been fighting for years that anyone, even random Facebook users, can do translation. That's a free lunch our industry can't afford.

Share:

Back to the Blog

Back to Top