Talk:Translation/Archives1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I do have a serious doubt about the "rank" to evaluate the ability of the translator to do so. Does the small number evaluate the ability of the translator to translate in a certain language, or does this indicate his ability to understand the foreign lan guage he is actually translating ? Anthere

There are components of from and into in the rankings; they are imperfect; it is the first standard that came to mind. If you would prefer another, or would prefer casual terms ("native, near-native, fluent, near-fluent, moderate") like those used on the en: Translators list, that's fine too! Sj 22:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't people be giving their own ratings? Why are you assigning them numbers? Erik has claimed he has near-native English so why would he be rated only a 4? I also find it hard to believe Anthere would only be 3, which implies she is unable to "handle informal interpreting from and into the language"! I think you risk offending people by rating them in this way. Angela 19:46, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

well, no matter how you interpret "3+?" (my ranking estimate for lovely Ant), it wasn't "only... 3". I was sure she was at least a 3+... I thought she'd said she wasn't a native speaker, which leaves only 3+ and 4... likewise I hadn't seen that statement of Erik's, but was sure he was at least a 4. In any case, I like Ant's idea of sticking to casual english ratings. If someone wants to convert the (0,1,2,3,4,5) spectrum to a ([~]minimal, [c]onversational, [m]oderate, [a]dvanced, [f]luent, [n]ative) one, more power to them. Sj
However, I think asking people to self-evaluate with these terms, without a fixed reference, encourages exaggerate d self-evaluation... it would be nice to be able to trust that anyone who is "fluent" in a target language can be the last person to touch something important translated into it. Sj
Aside from A&E, ratings were all converted from what people themselves have said. I didn't give them for those (from the fr: Traducteurs list) who hadn't taken a stance on their own level of skill; where I made mistakes it was from my misinterpretation of what others had written. Sj 22:33, 16 May 20 04 (UTC)

How did we get from a list of ILR-ratings to the current unreadable paragraph. As a result, there's now a misinterpretation of the 5 level. If you speak a language as well as a native speaker (or better), then you're class 5, regardless of y our origin: You've effecvtively become bilingual (multilingual). Aliter 15:05, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

the list wasn't very informative. maybe we should simply direct people to the source article? Sj

Better now. The interpreted list now makes sense, and the reader can find descriptions of the ILR-ratings. The best of both worlds. Aliter 22:50, 17 May 2004 (UTC)