Plagiarism Issues on GBK (Term Definitions) - Staff: interface improved to allow off-line sources
Thread poster: Lingua 5B

Lingua 5B  Identity Verified
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Local time: 06:46
German to Serbian
+ ...
Apr 6, 2010

After I have noticed this occurrence on at least three occasions, I decided to share it with you on public board and hear your views on this problem.

We have GBK ( Glossary- building-KudoZ) with obligatory term definitions. One of the options is "definition from own experience or research", and this is where the problem lies.

What I've seen is people actually copying, word for word, a definition from a source/reference stating it is drawn " from own research or experience". I've seen such definitions gaining agrees and entering the glossary, which I find ridiculous for professional translators arena. Even worse, they probably didn't even grasp the definition, or else they would have paraphrased it had they wanted so much for it to be " from own experience or research". If you want it that way, then write it in your own words.

We all know high-school students get the lowest mark if they are caught copying text word for word without quoting sources (+ are told off by the teacher), while I've seen it gaining points on a pro's website.

Not sure if this issue is regulated by any KudoZ rules, but I highly doubt it because I've such things being added to the glossary.

Any ideas, thoughts or suggestions, because I find it very irritating and unprofessional?













[Subject edited by staff or moderator 2010-04-06 18:06 GMT]

[Subject edited by staff or moderator 2010-04-10 14:19 GMT]


 

Neil Coffey  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:46
French to English
+ ...
Fair use and irresponsibility... Apr 6, 2010

Lingua 5B wrote:
Any ideas, thoughts or suggestions, because I find it very irritating and unprofessional?


Quoting a short definition from a source and acknowledging that that's what you are doing is, I would say, "fair use". (Whether that's legally so or not I don't know-- that's just my opinion.) Note that various of the well-respected terminology databases and dictionaries that we use on a daily basis quote from one another to some extent or another (IATE contains entries copied from the Grand Dictionnaire etc).

But quoting a source and deliberately not acknowledging that that's what you're doing is childish and irresponsible. But maybe a polite reminder to offenders to start with?-- I think there's enough bitterness in some of the ProZ activity as it is without creating more.


 

Dragomir Kovacevic  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 06:46
Italian to Serbian
+ ...
copy-paste, or "resavci" in Serbian Apr 6, 2010

I agree with all the allegations and statements.

As I understood once, these GBK question-answers, have to refer to something visible to all public, and that is, apparently, the internet!? How can we rely on internet completely? It is an imposition, a forced credo!

Not for "resavci", though!

Dragomir

Lingua 5B wrote:

After I have noticed this occurrence on at least three occasions, I decided to share it with you on public board and hear your views on this problem.

We have GBK ( Glossary- building-KudoZ) with obligatory term definitions. One of the options is "definition from own experience or research", and this is where the problem lies.

What I've seen is people actually copying, word for word, a definition from a source/reference stating it is drawn " from own research or experience". I've seen such definitions gaining agrees and entering the glossary, which I find ridiculous for professional translators arena. Even worse, they probably didn't even grasp the definition, or else they would have paraphrased it had they wanted so much for it to be " from own experience or research". If you want it that way, then write it in your own words.

We all know high-school students get the lowest mark if they are caught copying text word for word without quoting sources (+ are told off by the teacher), while I've seen it gaining points on a pro's website.

Not sure if this issue is regulated by any KudoZ rules, but I highly doubt it because I've such things being added to the glossary.

Any ideas, thoughts or suggestions, because I find it very irritating and unprofessional?













 

Christina Paiva  Identity Verified
Brazil
Local time: 03:46
Portuguese to English
+ ...
... own research and own experience Apr 6, 2010

I know what you mean!

[QUOTE] We have GBK ( Glossary- building-KudoZ) with obligatory term definitions. One of the options is "definition from own experience or research", and this is where the problem lies.[QUOTE]

Dragomir's opinion about information you get on the Internet is to be taken cautiously, to say the least!

Once upon a time, I submitted a GBK definition under this option. I did so, because I used to work as a biology researcher in that specific field. Now, I have to admit I interpreted this option wrongfully based on both own experience and research experience in the fieldicon_smile.gif

There are several translators who have actually worked in specifc fields and use their experience and knowlegde to render their texts and are able to provide their own definitions in their field of expertise. On the other hand, own research might be sort of confusing, given that translators do research terms to be sure they are accurately translated, but sometimes lack of experience in that specific field usually makes it difficult to provide a definition with 'own words'...

IMHO, plagiarism is a serious offense. Clarifying what is meant by definition from own experience or research might help ...


 

Lingua 5B  Identity Verified
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Local time: 06:46
German to Serbian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Answers Apr 6, 2010

Neil Coffey wrote:Quoting a short definition from a source and acknowledging that that's what you are doing is, I would say, "fair use". (Whether that's legally so or not I don't know-- that's just my opinion.)


No, they didn't acknowledge they are quoting it from any source. You may take "their own" definition, run it through Google, and it will take to the place where it's been swept from.

Neil Coffey wrote:
Note that various of the well-respected terminology databases and dictionaries that we use on a daily basis quote from one another to some extent or another (IATE contains entries copied from the Grand Dictionnaire etc).


Yes, to some extent or another, and they neatly add bibliographies, usually on the back pages. They take words not the whole copy-pasted paragraphs. It is one thing to use ideas or concepts ( although even then references are a must to quote), and it is another thing to take the entire verbal compositions.


Neil Coffey wrote:
But quoting a source and deliberately not acknowledging that that's what you're doing is childish and irresponsible. But maybe a polite reminder to offenders to start with?-- I think there's enough bitterness in some of the ProZ activity as it is without creating more.


Ask authors whether it will taste sweet or bitter to them. Imagine an author ( a field expert) who did an extensive research, composed their own definition carefully weighing and arranging each word to come across KudoZ while surfing the net and see their definition 100 % copied ( exactly how they worded it) being attributed to an XY KudoZer with points ( stating it's the KudoZer's own definition). And yes, the first time I saw it, I reacted, and I've been totally ignored; actually a few days after my polite "reaction" and quoting the source which they didn't quote, the term was added to the glossary ( without the source of course). Moreover, that happened again and again with some new terms, so I decided to open this thread.


Christina Paiva wrote:
but sometimes lack of experience in that specific field usually makes it difficult to provide a definition with 'own words'...


Not "sometimes". It reliably reflects the lack of experience and the lack of understanding of the definition and also the source citing/quoting after all ( something we should all have been introduced to even in elementary school). Especially because we are text/content-related professionals. We should know how important it is to quote references when copying a material fully, especially because GBK glossary clearly offers such an option ( and encourages it). Why skipping it then?

Christina Paiva wrote:
IMHO, plagiarism is a serious offense. Clarifying what is meant by definition from own experience or research might help ...


You are right about the confusion the term might imply ( some may think it requires a serious expert research etc), but I simply contrasted it with other options that require source quoting. Moreover, you can't quote a 7-line long definition, word for word ( 100 % copy-paste) and state it's your "own". To clarify the term, focus on the word "own", not the words research or experience. And yes, it is a serious offense.

[Edited at 2010-04-06 10:30 GMT]


 

Ildiko Santana  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 21:46
Member (2002)
Hungarian to English
+ ...

MODERATOR
excluding references from printed dictionaries Apr 6, 2010

Dragomir Kovacevic wrote:
As I understood once, these GBK question-answers, have to refer to something visible to all public, and that is, apparently, the internet!? How can we rely on internet completely? It is an imposition, a forced credo!


Dragomir raises a very good point: the limitation on GBK references, which I have wondered about myself. As the system is set up currently, we are only allowed to quote either from own experience/research or from the Internet, which excludes printed dictionaries and other printed reference materials completely. I believe this needs to be changed, because this limitation forces even the otherwise professional translators to refer to sources from the not-so-reliable Internet rather than to those in print, and it promotes the increasingly popular but unprofessional "translation" method preferred by habitual googlers. I suggest changing the field description from "link to source" to "link to source OR title/author/edition of reference in print."


 

Enrique Cavalitto  Identity Verified
Argentina
Local time: 02:46
Member (2006)
English to Spanish
We should allow entering reference source Apr 6, 2010

Thanks for your feedback!

I agree that we should allow answerers to enter their reference source when they do not base the definition in an on-line source. This will be entered into our pipeline for development.

Kind regards,
Enrique


 

Ildiko Santana  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 21:46
Member (2002)
Hungarian to English
+ ...

MODERATOR
from plagiarism to improvement : ) Apr 6, 2010

Enrique wrote:
This will be entered into our pipeline for development.


Thank you very much Enrique, and thanks to Lingua 5B as well for starting this topic. I am optimistic about the proposed adjustment and expect it to help eliminate cut/paste answers being used as "own" ideas.


 

Lingua 5B  Identity Verified
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Local time: 06:46
German to Serbian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Thanks. Apr 10, 2010

I wanna thank everyone who contributed to this thread, and also thank Enrique for implementing the mentioned changes. I hope the "own experience" option will have some note warning participants that copying text fully without quoting sources is considered plagiarism.

Thanks!


 

Enrique Cavalitto  Identity Verified
Argentina
Local time: 02:46
Member (2006)
English to Spanish
Thanks again Apr 10, 2010

Thanks again for the great feedback.

The definition section of the GBK answering form now looks like this:



The message for the "source" selection is "Select off-line source if the definition was found in a book, printed article, etc."

More detailed instructions could be posted in a dedicated FAQ.

Regards,
Enrique


 


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Plagiarism Issues on GBK (Term Definitions) - Staff: interface improved to allow off-line sources

Advanced search






Protemos translation business management system
Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!

The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.

More info »
CafeTran Espresso
You've never met a CAT tool this clever!

Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer. Accept jobs from clients who use SDL Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools. Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free

More info »



Forums
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search