| Thank you for your contribution, Francis || Mar 4, 2002 |
A simple error becomes a virus once it is posted in a glossary. It multiplies and infects medical reports, psychiatric evaluations, posologies, websites, user and owner manuals, etc., all over the world.
I submit that we have the responsibility to be a lot more thorough in our answers. I further submit that we should respond in the fields where we have the expertise and/or experience necessary and only contribute in other fields if we are absolutely sure that we have something to contribute that is the result of well founded knowledge, research and exposure as opposed to what is customary in our neighbourhoods and with the talking heads who eviscerate language at the top of every hour.
That we should explain our answers to the point where the asker has enough information so as to select the appropriate rendition that speaks to the subject, context, audience, usage and period, etc., of the material they are processing.
If we wish this site to be more than \"junk food\" for the people that visit here, we are the responsible parties. No one else.
We must endeavour to place our site in such a position that will allow it and us to become the pre-eminent source for language consultation online and off.
It is our responsibility to make this site the authoritative entity on matters linguistic and a daily reminder that human translation is superior to any of the alternatives available.
This will strenghthen our position that professional service by experienced linguists stands head and shoulders above the quick-fix rubbish available to date.
Otherwise, our resemblance to machine translation will continue to grow, identified as the royal family of lipservice, we can only expect to be seen and considered as professional and as experienced as the rubbish we sanction with our silence.
I agree with your feelings about quality entirely. However, when consulting the glossary, which I do quite often, I go through all the possibilities that are offered until I find the right one, and if I don\'t like anything, I keep looking, just as I do (and assume others do) with dicitonary entries... Admittedly, there are some howlers in the glossary. But surely if you\'re serious about your translation, you won\'t be fooled. When searching through the glossary, I also add many things that nobody else has bothered to do. Having read in other threads that some may not find this acceptable, I\'ll explain my reasons. It\'s simply less time consuming and more effective to search if you see the question and the answer chosen, rather than just the question, i.e. you have a better idea of whether it\'s worth looking at or not. It would also help if the glossary indicated how many replies there were and who the person whose answer was chosen is, rather than the name of the person who entered it in the glossary (who may not have had anything to do with the question at all). It would also help if you could still agree/disagree, etc. after the question has been closed. So if you\'re searching through the glossary and see a howler, or an extremely good answer that was not chosen, for example, you can add your comment so that those looking at it at a later date will have more info to go on.
Again, Francis, thanks very much for your comments.
| || || |