New Rule? Voting in cases of disagreement.
Talk Translating LibraryThing? (General Talk)
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1timspalding
I think we need a new social mechanism, like Wikipedia's "Three Revert Rule" and offiial votes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule).
I propose the following:
1. In the case of significant, continued disagreement--evinced by controversy on Talk, or a revert-way--a user may call a vote. Once a vote is called, everyone who knows about the vote must stop editing hat translation.
2. To call a vote the user starts a thread in Talk entitled "Official Vote: Translating 'Tag'." (Yes, translate all but "tag.")
3. The user indicates that this is an official vote and lays out the situation without partiality to one side or another. The user also describes the voting, as below.
4. The thing goes on for two weeks. The first week is for discussing the matter and proposing translations. The person who called the vote then steps in to list all the options. The second week is for voting, where members only record their vote.
5. For a winner to be official, six people must have voted and the winner must win by two points.
6. Only people who had signed up before the vote was called can have their vote counted.
7. All members who know about or participated in the vote are equally bound to respect it—reverting and cheering translations as appropriate. A vote can be re-voted six months after it was decided.
Comments, questions?
I propose the following:
1. In the case of significant, continued disagreement--evinced by controversy on Talk, or a revert-way--a user may call a vote. Once a vote is called, everyone who knows about the vote must stop editing hat translation.
2. To call a vote the user starts a thread in Talk entitled "Official Vote: Translating 'Tag'." (Yes, translate all but "tag.")
3. The user indicates that this is an official vote and lays out the situation without partiality to one side or another. The user also describes the voting, as below.
4. The thing goes on for two weeks. The first week is for discussing the matter and proposing translations. The person who called the vote then steps in to list all the options. The second week is for voting, where members only record their vote.
5. For a winner to be official, six people must have voted and the winner must win by two points.
6. Only people who had signed up before the vote was called can have their vote counted.
7. All members who know about or participated in the vote are equally bound to respect it—reverting and cheering translations as appropriate. A vote can be re-voted six months after it was decided.
Comments, questions?
2royalhistorian
I'm in. That's already something I'm trying to achieve at the Dutch group. It would be great to have it as an 'official' rule!
3timspalding
Cool. Ultimately we need some rule. But maybe others have suggestions about how it can work better. Most importantly, I don't want to define every rule (eg., what if two translations are variations on each other, and together have more than another one?). It has to be based on being reasonable, even charitable.
4MMcM
In what group is the step 2 call made? This group or the target language's group?
In what language(s) is the step 4 discussion carried out? The target language would seem simplest. But perhaps English would allow Tim to monitor the tone of the discussion itself to make sure it is on track and avoiding poor debating practices. (The first wouldn't need to be a requirement; Latin has to date been discussed most easily in some other language. But the second would have to be.)
In what language(s) is the step 4 discussion carried out? The target language would seem simplest. But perhaps English would allow Tim to monitor the tone of the discussion itself to make sure it is on track and avoiding poor debating practices. (The first wouldn't need to be a requirement; Latin has to date been discussed most easily in some other language. But the second would have to be.)
5timspalding
It should all happen in the language group, not in the general group.
I don't care about monitoring—indeed, I'd rather not! Jimmy Wales, PBUH, doesn't monitor everything. (Indeed, there might be cause for some sort of admin priviledge on LT.) In cases of extreme disagreement, I can call in Abebooks Europe resources to take a quick look, as I did in the Dutch case. (I also heard a lot about from a Dutch company I'm talking to.)
I don't care about monitoring—indeed, I'd rather not! Jimmy Wales, PBUH, doesn't monitor everything. (Indeed, there might be cause for some sort of admin priviledge on LT.) In cases of extreme disagreement, I can call in Abebooks Europe resources to take a quick look, as I did in the Dutch case. (I also heard a lot about from a Dutch company I'm talking to.)
7timspalding
Okay. Public comment period is now over. This is an official policy. Please feel free to spread it.
8kantelier
Didn't saw a deadline for this one. Though it's too late to make a difference, I thought I finish the post I started
It somehow looks like a hammer to push the pins in my lace pillow. A thimble looks better suited for the purpose (except for a project like this lace fence). Perhaps it is a good procedure for wikipedia articles, but we are mostly dealing with words or fragments of phrases.
I think the next three rules are much easier to explain, understand and apply:
1) members can vote for the most favourite alternative and/or add an alternative
2) the alternative with the most votes is shown
3) a vote can be changed
No freedom is taken away, no deadlines needed. But no single user can dominate/revert without supporters. It stimulates friendly communication, otherwise you won't get supporters. The translation will rather evolve than revolve.
Of course I don't know the technical effort needed to support this proposal.
It somehow looks like a hammer to push the pins in my lace pillow. A thimble looks better suited for the purpose (except for a project like this lace fence). Perhaps it is a good procedure for wikipedia articles, but we are mostly dealing with words or fragments of phrases.
I think the next three rules are much easier to explain, understand and apply:
1) members can vote for the most favourite alternative and/or add an alternative
2) the alternative with the most votes is shown
3) a vote can be changed
No freedom is taken away, no deadlines needed. But no single user can dominate/revert without supporters. It stimulates friendly communication, otherwise you won't get supporters. The translation will rather evolve than revolve.
Of course I don't know the technical effort needed to support this proposal.
9timspalding
I frankly don't see this happening very often. But I want something for the most contentious cases--and something that REQUIRES communication. This was instituted largely because one language is in a complete tizzy and virtually at war with itself. Requiring some formal, conversational structure when the pushing and shoving get chronic seems likes a good idea to me.
10MMcM
The voting approach can have problems in the non-contentious cases too.
Suppose that everyone votes in favor of some mediocre translation, because it is better than nothing. Then a new users joins who is a better translator and they propose a brilliant alternative. It will not show up until a majority are rallied to it. The current system is superior, though it does indeed break down more dramatically in the face of pitched battles. For which diplomatic negotiation has got to be the answer.
Suppose that everyone votes in favor of some mediocre translation, because it is better than nothing. Then a new users joins who is a better translator and they propose a brilliant alternative. It will not show up until a majority are rallied to it. The current system is superior, though it does indeed break down more dramatically in the face of pitched battles. For which diplomatic negotiation has got to be the answer.
11xtien
>10 MMcM:
You are right about the quality of a translation not being guaranteed by the highest number of votes. And quality is not the only issue: the style of the translation (like, should it be formal or not so formal) should be consistent, and people should agree on the style.
The current system however, favors the people who are most determined to get their translation online, even if it is not supported by others and is very different from what others see as the preferred style. If diplomatic negotiation, or any negotiation, leads to a translation accepted by all, that is to be preferred. If all negoatiation fails, we will need the occasional vote.
You are right about the quality of a translation not being guaranteed by the highest number of votes. And quality is not the only issue: the style of the translation (like, should it be formal or not so formal) should be consistent, and people should agree on the style.
The current system however, favors the people who are most determined to get their translation online, even if it is not supported by others and is very different from what others see as the preferred style. If diplomatic negotiation, or any negotiation, leads to a translation accepted by all, that is to be preferred. If all negoatiation fails, we will need the occasional vote.
