Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version 1.0

Discuss all topics related to the existing rules and policies

Moderators: thelastguardian, Fringe Security Bureau, Senior Editors, Senior Translators, Alt. Language Translator/Editor, Executive Council, Project Translators, Project Editors

Vote to officially ratify the Contributor Agreement (Wiki) and approve from draft status

Yes - I read the proposed rules and vote to officially approve them
10
83%
No - There is something seriously wrong. I object.
0
No votes
Wait - Please make some minor corrections first. I'll change my vote after it's satisfactory.
2
17%
 
Total votes: 12

User avatar
cloudii
Project Translator
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:30 pm
Favourite Light Novel: Ahouka!
Location: awkward buttface
Contact:

Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version 1.0

Post by cloudii »

Note, if this looks locked to you, click viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10328

The big fish are coming......

For this poll, vote ONLY on the:
  • Baka-Tsuki Contributor Agreement

    Please consider these rules independently of the other rules that are still in draft stage.
    Also, assume the broken links lead to perfectly ideal and satisfactory pages. ;)
What was decided at Baka-Tsuki General Meeting
1). One year of inactivty = loss of physical wiki rights
2). If you end up coming back, talk to a sysop to be reinstated

Vote: In Favor (9) - Not in Favor (0)
Little Introduction
First of all, this is really only half the rules for contributors. The other practical half is at Project Conventions.

Why the split? Because the Contributor Agreement is the Global Rules. It's like a Federal Constitution that affects all projects and the "States" (the Projects) can't ever violate. It's also a guideline of general principles that we all generally believe in (example: Point 8 is a "Right to Participation").

The remainder of the rules should be debated upon by the Project Staff and the Project Manager, to better suit the needs of the Project.

Are roughly autonomous (or confederate) Translation Projects a controversial idea? Well, a (not-so) long time ago I remember hearing that Baka-Tsuki is a host for light novel translations, not a light novel translation group. With that concept, I think it's perfectly fair that as a host, that we do not interfere with how a group of people decide to run a translation project so long as it does not violate a few universal principles.

This page describes these "certain few universal principles".

I recommend that everyone take a glance at the Current Project Conventions before we proceed forward.

Okay, with that said, let the debates begin! :D

------------

If you vote, please leave a comment saying what you voted for. This is not a secret ballot.

This is simply so we don't get stumped if 5 trolling readers people vote "no" or something. FYI, the votes are changeable.
Twitter: @cloudiirain | BT Userpage | OreShura Translator | Biblia Editor (@HereticLNT) | Clockwork Editor (@HereticLNT)
User avatar
onizuka-gto
Editor-in-Chief
Posts: 4840
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 9:02 pm
Favourite Light Novel: Suzumiya Haruhi
Mahouka koukou no Rettousei
No Game No Life
Mushoku Tensei
Mother of Learning
Location: N.E.E.T Federation
Contact:

Re: Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version

Post by onizuka-gto »

I would like to add an extra rule, that all registered users who has been given a discipline action, has the right to a final appeal, to be reviewed by a custodian (or if a Custodian is involved, a third unrelated Custodian shall be assigned). The disciplined registered user and the Staff administrating the discipline action must be prepared to submit evidence for supporting/against the prosecution.
This judgement will be final and binding.
"Please note, we have added a consequence for failure.Any contact with the chamber floor will result in an unsatisfactory mark on your official test record, followed by death. Good luck."

@Onizukademongto
User avatar
chancs
Project Editor
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:07 am
Favourite Light Novel: Ahouka!
Location: under the starry night
Contact:

Re: Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version

Post by chancs »

Some points which I feel need to be discussed and are suggested for the 'contributor agreement' :

1) Point no. 3 - III.
Under no circumstances would you submit translated works (or links to translated works) copied directly from an unauthorized source.
Err... I suggest to write 'unidentified' source. This is because what/who will authorize the source (This sounds too official...?) Not our concern I suppose.

2) Point 3 - Sub-point 2 -
You have written permission from the original translator. In this situation, you should refer to these guidelines: Submitting External Works with Permission.
I suggest for the word 'e-permission' . Written means... written. Might be a silly suggestion. *scratches head*

3) Point 8 - Sub-point 1 -
If a translator/editor cannot contribute due to restrictions dictated in the Project-Specific Guidelines, there must be an alternate means by which these individuals can somehow participate and contribute to the Translation Project.
Suggestion to add 'The decision of Project Manager on this shall be final'. Something along those lines. A PM may or may not want the
  • Example: If a translator is insufficiently skilled by the standards of the Translation Project, he/she could be offered a trainee or translation-checking role to develop language skills.
    Example: If an editor has poor affinity with a certain translator with stylistic edits, he/she must at the very least be allowed to make typo corrections.'
.
4) Point 8 - Sub-point 1 - Example 1 -
Example: If a translator is insufficiently skilled by the standards of the Translation Project, he/she could be offered a trainee or translation-checking role to develop language skills.
There is a 'user group right' called 'Translation Reviewers' (with 0 members at present :lol: ). So instead of a TLCr, this term (TLR) could be used.

5) Point 8 - Sub-point 2 -
The right to make minor edits is a universal right. No contributor or anonymous user can be denied of this privilege unless there is a valid threat for vandalism.
Suggestion to remove the whole point. Eg - I can make a heavy edit and mark it as a minor edit (or is it that the system itself won't allow to mark 'minor edit' ? I don't know).

6) Under 'Special Usergroups' - Point 1 - Sub-point 1 -
Special Usergroups include: Project Translator, Project Editor, Senior Translator, Senior Editor, Wiki Supervisor, Wiki Custodian.
There is no user group named 'Project Translator, Project Editor, Sr. TLr or Sr. Edtr' on wiki. They are only on the forum. Wiki has only TLr and Edtr, among others.

7) following the above - Point 2 - About the admin staff, better to mention about the
One year of inactivty = loss of physical wiki rights
2). If you end up coming back, talk to a sysop to be reinstated'
as discussed in the meeting. Something like 'The absentee may be reinstated upon request. The decision of Consul and/or Custodian shall be final and binding.' in small fonts

All that being said, I am voting for wait.
User avatar
cloudii
Project Translator
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:30 pm
Favourite Light Novel: Ahouka!
Location: awkward buttface
Contact:

Re: Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version

Post by cloudii »

onizuka-gto wrote:I would like to add an extra rule, that all registered users who has been given a discipline action, has the right to a final appeal, to be reviewed by a custodian (or if a Custodian is involved, a third unrelated Custodian shall be assigned). The disciplined registered user and the Staff administrating the discipline action must be prepared to submit evidence for supporting/against the prosecution.
This judgement will be final and binding.
Done. Added.
chancs wrote:1) Point no. 3 - III.
Under no circumstances would you submit translated works (or links to translated works) copied directly from an unauthorized source.
Err... I suggest to write 'unidentified' source. This is because what/who will authorize the source (This sounds too official...?) Not our concern I suppose.
Disagree with you there. The authorization must come from the source. The original translator (ie: NanoDesu) must authorize a random contributor to post a NanoDesu translation on Baka-Tsuki. "Identified" doesn't work quite as well, but I'm open to suggestions. ;D
chancs wrote: 2) Point 3 - Sub-point 2 -
You have written permission from the original translator. In this situation, you should refer to these guidelines: Submitting External Works with Permission.
I suggest for the word 'e-permission' . Written means... written. Might be a silly suggestion. *scratches head*
Done. Added.
chancs wrote: 3) Point 8 - Sub-point 1 -
If a translator/editor cannot contribute due to restrictions dictated in the Project-Specific Guidelines, there must be an alternate means by which these individuals can somehow participate and contribute to the Translation Project.
Suggestion to add 'The decision of Project Manager on this shall be final'. Something along those lines. A PM may or may not want the
  • Example: If a translator is insufficiently skilled by the standards of the Translation Project, he/she could be offered a trainee or translation-checking role to develop language skills.
    Example: If an editor has poor affinity with a certain translator with stylistic edits, he/she must at the very least be allowed to make typo corrections.'
.
I actually don't quite understand you Chancs....... could you come again? I don't think I understood what you were trying to say, but I changed what's written........ is that better now?
chancs wrote: 4) Point 8 - Sub-point 1 - Example 1 -
Example: If a translator is insufficiently skilled by the standards of the Translation Project, he/she could be offered a trainee or translation-checking role to develop language skills.
There is a 'user group right' called 'Translation Reviewers' (with 0 members at present :lol: ). So instead of a TLCr, this term (TLR) could be used.
Will keep that in mind. Took out that sentence for now.
chancs wrote: 5) Point 8 - Sub-point 2 -
The right to make minor edits is a universal right. No contributor or anonymous user can be denied of this privilege unless there is a valid threat for vandalism.
Suggestion to remove the whole point. Eg - I can make a heavy edit and mark it as a minor edit (or is it that the system itself won't allow to mark 'minor edit' ? I don't know).
Done.
chancs wrote: 6) Under 'Special Usergroups' - Point 1 - Sub-point 1 -
Special Usergroups include: Project Translator, Project Editor, Senior Translator, Senior Editor, Wiki Supervisor, Wiki Custodian.
There is no user group named 'Project Translator, Project Editor, Sr. TLr or Sr. Edtr' on wiki. They are only on the forum. Wiki has only TLr and Edtr, among others.
Senior Editor and Senior Translator are legitimate positions on our hierarchy though. During the past nominations, Oni elevated people to those roles. IDK if that should be reflected in the Wiki or anything.
chancs wrote: 7) following the above - Point 2 - About the admin staff, better to mention about the
One year of inactivty = loss of physical wiki rights
2). If you end up coming back, talk to a sysop to be reinstated'
as discussed in the meeting. Something like 'The absentee may be reinstated upon request. The decision of Consul and/or Custodian shall be final and binding.' in small fonts

All that being said, I am voting for wait.
Done. I was lazy last night and somehow forgot to add that line. XD
Twitter: @cloudiirain | BT Userpage | OreShura Translator | Biblia Editor (@HereticLNT) | Clockwork Editor (@HereticLNT)
Talinnilat
Devoted Haruhiist
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:08 pm
Favourite Light Novel:

Re: Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version

Post by Talinnilat »

cloud wrote:
chancs wrote:1) Point no. 3 - III.
Err... I suggest to write 'unidentified' source. This is because what/who will authorize the source (This sounds too official...?) Not our concern I suppose.
Disagree with you there. The authorization must come from the source. The original translator (ie: NanoDesu) must authorize a random contributor to post a NanoDesu translation on Baka-Tsuki. "Identified" doesn't work quite as well, but I'm open to suggestions. ;D
Perhaps rewrite it as 'Under no circumstances would you submit translated works (or links to translated works) copied directly from a source without expressed approval by that source.'
User avatar
cloudii
Project Translator
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:30 pm
Favourite Light Novel: Ahouka!
Location: awkward buttface
Contact:

Re: Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version

Post by cloudii »

Talinnilat wrote: Perhaps rewrite it as 'Under no circumstances would you submit translated works (or links to translated works) copied directly from a source without expressed approval by that source.'
Changed to: "III. Under no circumstances would you submit translated works (or links to translated works) copied directly from an external source without permission."

-------
Question:
chancs wrote:To wiki supervisors:

What to do when 2 accounts are created by the same person? As in on wiki it shows 'x account was created by y'. And the person has contributed through acc x.

Should we block the account 'y' or only do the block/ delete when the person requests for it? Or to leave it as it is?

Thanks
zzhk wrote:There's no rule saying each person must have only one account, right?

Also, in some cases, people might ask someone else to create an account for them because their country or IP range is blacklisted by the wiki.

The wiki also has a "merge user" function, but of course, it should only be used at the user's request.
Add to rules or no?
Twitter: @cloudiirain | BT Userpage | OreShura Translator | Biblia Editor (@HereticLNT) | Clockwork Editor (@HereticLNT)
User avatar
chancs
Project Editor
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:07 am
Favourite Light Novel: Ahouka!
Location: under the starry night
Contact:

Re: Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version

Post by chancs »

cloud wrote: I actually don't quite understand you Chancs....... could you come again? I don't think I understood what you were trying to say, but I changed what's written........ is that better now?
I was saying that a PM may want only a limited/skilled only (?) people to work on the project. But I think that got covered in point 7.

Suggestn - If a translator/editor isn't able contribute due to restrictions dictated in the Project-Specific Guidelines, they can reach the Project Manager for... help and guidance so to participate and contribute to the Translation Project?
cloud wrote: Question:
chancs wrote:To wiki supervisors:

What to do when 2 accounts are created by the same person? As in on wiki it shows 'x account was created by y'. And the person has contributed through acc x.

Should we block the account 'y' or only do the block/ delete when the person requests for it? Or to leave it as it is?

Thanks
zzhk wrote:There's no rule saying each person must have only one account, right?

Also, in some cases, people might ask someone else to create an account for them because their country or IP range is blacklisted by the wiki.

The wiki also has a "merge user" function, but of course, it should only be used at the user's request.
Add to rules or no?
Ah no. No need for that. As zzhk explained, action will be taken based on request or if there is any misuse of multi-accounts. My question was a simple curiosity. :)

And thank you Cloud for clarifying the rest. :)
User avatar
cloudii
Project Translator
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:30 pm
Favourite Light Novel: Ahouka!
Location: awkward buttface
Contact:

Re: Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version

Post by cloudii »

chancs wrote: I was saying that a PM may want only a limited/skilled only (?) people to work on the project. But I think that got covered in point 7.
Ahh, there's the great debate.

Question:

On Baka-Tsuki, is there a right to participation? Meaning, can anyone contribute to a Baka-Tsuki project (regardless of skill or experience?)

As a MediaWiki-type project, normally you'd say we do allow anyone to contribute. That's the point of Statement 8. Wiki's have a culture that you don't need to put in an application, take a test, or have certain qualification to edit/contribute an article or page. This quality has defined Baka-Tsuki in the past. We don't have diagnostic tests or applications to join us. You just edit directly onto the page.

The purpose of Statement 8 is a balancing check-point. However a Project Manager may feel, he/she cannot eject an individual from a project. A PM cannot say: "You are not welcome on this project. Don't come this project ever again."

Of course, the exception to this is that if individual broke a rule. But in that case, it would be a suspension or ban to a project that only came from punishment.

-------------------

Some case-studies to get some thoughts rolling:

Case Study A:
  • Assume a horrible translator (only slightly better than a machine translator), came to Camipione! Project, and registers for the next chapter after Zzhk.

    How do we empower the Project Manager of Campione! to deal with this situation?
Case Study B:
  • Assume a brand new translator with NanoDesu-type expectations joins a projects and takes Project Manager responsibilities.

    On the Project-Specific Guidelines, he posts an extremely difficult translator test and editor test and states that anyone who does not submit the test to him will be breaking the rules for the project. Furthermore, he forbids Chinese translators and translators using fan translation raws on the project.

    Now, the issue is that this Project Manager is an extremely slow translator (by himself), and he's taken responsibilities for an extremely popular project (let's pretend it's Baka-Test, which by the way, is pretty easy to translate) that many members want to join (but can't b/c the test itself is too difficult). What now?
Just some food for thought. :D

I know I've prepared some mechanisms (like Wiki Supervisors can override Project Managers) in anticipation of these situations, but I would like it if everyone could consider these extreme situations and give feedback on exactly how Baka-Tsuki should stand with regards to these issues.
Twitter: @cloudiirain | BT Userpage | OreShura Translator | Biblia Editor (@HereticLNT) | Clockwork Editor (@HereticLNT)
User avatar
onizuka-gto
Editor-in-Chief
Posts: 4840
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 9:02 pm
Favourite Light Novel: Suzumiya Haruhi
Mahouka koukou no Rettousei
No Game No Life
Mushoku Tensei
Mother of Learning
Location: N.E.E.T Federation
Contact:

Re: Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version

Post by onizuka-gto »

My opinion on the matter has always been clear, we are open to everyone. (bar any that has received a disciplinary action that disrupts the harmony of the state).

If you have the motivation and confidence to improve and practice your translation skills to join a project or start one, then i feel they should be given the chance.

we are a fan translation community not a professionals, not for profit or fame. If the common comrades of the people are not given the opportunity without any expectations....then who will?

This point also relates to the "test proficiency" scenario, i oppose to a test that seeks a standard that the majority of comrades would be realistically be unable to meet. It is unenforceable and without due diligence by comrades with better translation skills to assess, will be time consuming, but most importantly it conflicts with my first point, the ability to give the common people, the comrades citizens a chance to succeed or fail.

Hence if such a test was to surface on any project, I will not support it.

As for the "horrible translator" we have a clear policy that if you are using a machine translator for majority of your scripts, that they are to tag the script as "preview" to clearly announce to the readers that it has been used. This was to inform the reader that this translator is still learning and to understand the script will require editing to correct it. The demand i have found, will balance itself, either the translator will improve and use less machine translation or eventually another translator will appear and work to replace the machine translated scripts with a better one.
"Please note, we have added a consequence for failure.Any contact with the chamber floor will result in an unsatisfactory mark on your official test record, followed by death. Good luck."

@Onizukademongto
rydenius
Project Translator
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:31 pm
Favourite Light Novel:

Re: Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version

Post by rydenius »

VI. Wiki Supervisors have the final word with regards to any global management issue.
Do not argue. Wiki Supervisors rank above Project Managers and manage Baka-Tsuki globally as an organization
^--This might lead to this --V
IV. The Original Translator is to be regarded as the primary shareholder of a specific translation.
The Original Translator has the full right to withhold or remove his/her original translation(s) from the Wiki.
I think the words "Do not argue." should be removed.

"Do not argue." seems to indicate that the Supervisor not only has the final word, but possibly also the first and only word on a particular matter without any room for presenting of facts, arguments, or even alternate suggestions to resolve an issue. Though I think the key might be in what would be an example of a "global management issue"? Should that be defined somewhere? Also, should there be some kind of process for initiating an appeals process to a panel of supervisors or to onizuka-gto if a Project Manager/Translator feels particularly aggrieved by a decision? What about situations where a Project Manager/Translator/Editor etc., feels particularly aggrieved by a Supervisor in a non-"global management issue", such as a dispute arbitration?

Obviously no one would want a Supervisor to feel that his decisions are being second guessed by other Supervisors, that would be horrible for morale. The Supervisors have already proven themselves trustworthy/fair-minded (hopefully! :D ), are freely giving of their time, and are there to reduce onizuka-gto's workload too (I'm assuming :wink: ) so it would be ridiculous if every contentious decision was appealed to onizuka-gto or a panel, but you guys can probably envision a situation where a Supervisor and a Project Manager *really* don't get along, and an arbitrary or possibly regrettable decision is made in the heat of the moment. Having some kind of appeals process for possibly meritorious claims might help add legitimacy to the decision and lessen the feel of having been personally singled out for "punishment".
Promotion to higher usergroups are made by invitation or nomination, when an individual has demonstrated contributions worthy of the usergroup.
Special Usergroups include: Translator, Editor, Senior Translator, Senior Editor, Wiki Supervisor, Wiki Custodian.
Self-Nominations can be directed to Wiki Supervisors, but there is no guarantee of acceptance
Should these groups and their requirements/duties be defined somewhere? Also would it it better to have a general administrative contact page instead of having a member randomly contact someone from the Wiki Supervisors list?

Should someone without Translator status post translations? Or is Translator status to be given as a recognition of past (and ongoing) contributions? Project Editor appears to be officially defined in the Project Conventions draft:
Dedicated Project Editor Registration
7). Editors are REQUIRED to Contact the Project Manager if they would like to officially join the Project Staff as a Dedicated Editor
The Editors listed under Project Staff are exclusively reserved for editors who have made major contributions (e.g. >10,000 characters of changes).
8 ). Editors may not add themselves to the Project Staff list on the Project Overview Page
The Project Manager will do it for you. The Project Staff area is exclusively reserved for individuals who have made major contributions.
So Project Editor appears to be different from Editor or is it? Should the same be true for Project Translator vs. Translator? (Project Translator does seem to sound more prestigious. :mrgreen: )

About Cloud's case studies:
Case A -- In the case of a poor quality translator where good quality translators are active on the project, might it come down to what are the rules/best-practices for replacing existing translations (could cause bruised feelings), and would it be useful to allow a poor quality translation as a preview? Though unless the quality translator is particularly slow this seems like a waste of resources or might block the quality translator, and what if the good quality translator decides he doesn't want to duplicate the effort and skips that chapter/volume leaving the poor quality translation? :cry:

Wouldn't it be advantageous in these sort of situations to allow the Project manager some control over allowing/prioritizing chapter registration -- particularly if there is a group of translators and project manager that are working well together? Also should multiple versions of a chapter be allowed to exist (maybe with a link to the alternate translation on the chapter page?), or should only the "best" translation (as subjectively decided by the Project Manager/Supervisor) be kept as current?

In cases were there's a lack of translators, it would seem reasonable for the Supervisor to encourage Project Managers to allow the poor quality translations since some translation is probably better than no translation at all. (Though... not sure I'd want to be listed as Project Manager over an obviously extremely poor quality translation... I might want to be able to require a "preview translation" tag or something.)

Case B -- if there other are other eager and good quality translators wanting to do work (and with onidzuka-gto directing the supervisor to veto the test requirement :wink: ) wouldn't this scenario be resolvable by having a Supervisor (gently) recommend implementing/enforcing the limit on chapter registrations as detailed in the (default) Project Conventions? Which as currently drafted would limit the slow translator to only one volume, thereby allowing others to (at the least) work on the other volumes?
Last edited by rydenius on Sat Apr 12, 2014 4:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: grammar
User avatar
chancs
Project Editor
Posts: 687
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:07 am
Favourite Light Novel: Ahouka!
Location: under the starry night
Contact:

Re: Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version

Post by chancs »

Oni's comment on the restrictions on contributions seconded.
Cthaeh
Yuki-Nagator
Posts: 647
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:54 pm
Favourite Light Novel:

Re: Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version

Post by Cthaeh »

With the general guidelines everyone should be able to contribute to the wiki:

For case A, I'd say that the project manager has the right to decide that a translation should be redone. So the less-able translator is able to post his or her translation, but then zzhk can overwrite it once he comes to it. In situations like this I think it would be best for the project manager to notify the less-able that his or her translation will be replaced or heavily edited in the future, to avoid having them do extra work without knowing that fact.

For case B, if you start with the assumption that everyone should be able to contribute, the strict and slow project manager can't limit people from participating. The most they could do was demotivate other contributors by saying their work will be heavily edited or replaced in the future.


An issue remaining is multiple versions of the translation. I think it should be up to the project manager but generally discouraged. Though this policy could create some issues with hosted projects, but we might have some other threads more appropriate to discuss those.
User avatar
cloudii
Project Translator
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:30 pm
Favourite Light Novel: Ahouka!
Location: awkward buttface
Contact:

Re: Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version

Post by cloudii »

chancs wrote:Oni's comment on the restrictions on contributions seconded.
Agreed. Which again, is the point of Statement 8. Statement 8 guarantees the fact that all BT translation projects must be open to everyone.

This is a direct power-check on Project Managers of Case Study 2. On Baka-Tsuki, people cannot be 100% turned away from a translation project (unless they've broken rules), regardless of skill or capacity. If Oni (and others) oppose the administration of diagnostic tests, it is the responsibility of Wiki Supervisors to veto project-specific guidelines that may grossly inhibit the vision of Statement 8.

At the mean time, I'm trying to validate and balance the amount of control Project Managers have on their projects.

I know in practice, for example, that Lare-tan once asked Juunynam to hold off on translating on Bakemonogatari if he was using Korean raws (b/c of the Japanese language nuances in Monogatari). Similarly, I also know of instances that Teh Ping and other translators have asked sufficiently inexperienced translators to come back to a certain project once they've gotten better. Furthermore, I also know of plenty of PM's that abhor machine translations and don't want to see machine TLs on their projects at all (since the preview scripts demotivate translators from ever translating it again).

In the past, most of these veteran translators just expressed their sincere opinions on user talk pages, and most new inexperienced translators would listen and stop translating (or move to a different project, which is perfectly fine by me).

However, it's my observation that this does occur, even though it's an unwritten anywhere in the rules. I was wondering whether we should endorse this kind of behavior (I think we should), and if we do, how so?

To be perfectly honest, I think it would be nice to give Zzhk in Project Campione! or Js06 the ability to ask a new translator whose translators are riddled with mistakes to take a break from the project (eg: try translating something easier first). I think it's frustrating to a good translator to have your slot (that you intended to translate a couple months in the future) taken simply because registration is first-come-first serve, and have the resulting translation be of quite poor quality.

Personally, if a horrendous translator came to my project (OreShura's relatively easy to translate), I would ask them to work on prologues/epilogues/afterwords or the side-story volumes so they can get a chance to get more experience before they worked on the main storyline. I'd also work to TLC what they translate. But then again, that's just me. Judging from history, I'm pretty sure Js06 would completely re-translate something he didn't think was good enough. XD I can't necessarily say all translation projects will be ecstatic if a bad translator/editor joins the project.

IMO, it's so difficult to balance the rights between the existing translators and potential new ones. To be perfectly honest, I think we're talking about a situation where the new translator or editor has bad chemistry with the existing team. This bad chemistry is dangerous, and if doesn't get resolved, it usually means one of the parties end up leaving. Most of the time, the new contributor leaves. But I'm more afraid of the fact that if we limit the control rights of existing members too much, it might cause old translators to get frustrated with Baka-Tsuki and pick-up-and-leave (ie: post translations on their own blog).

In short, here's my opinion on how the rules should be practically implemented:
  1. All Translation Projects must be open to the public. Every individual has a right of participation in a translation project, regardless of skill. (Statement 8)
  2. Project Managers generally have full control with regards to all issues of the project (including conflicts that may arise from registration)
  3. Project Managers can dictate more stringent rules on the project if it's reasonable (ie: projects that have active translators can say no to machine translators, because preview scripts can demotivate active translators). HOWEVER, it's up to Administration to monitor these guidelines and veto rules that become unreasonable and encroach to much on Statement 8 of the Constitution.
In general, I'm glad to see that most of us see similarly on the "everyone can contribute to the wiki" point.

@Rydenius: Will go over your points later.
Twitter: @cloudiirain | BT Userpage | OreShura Translator | Biblia Editor (@HereticLNT) | Clockwork Editor (@HereticLNT)
User avatar
onizuka-gto
Editor-in-Chief
Posts: 4840
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 9:02 pm
Favourite Light Novel: Suzumiya Haruhi
Mahouka koukou no Rettousei
No Game No Life
Mushoku Tensei
Mother of Learning
Location: N.E.E.T Federation
Contact:

Re: Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version

Post by onizuka-gto »

I also know of instances that Teh Ping and other translators have asked sufficiently inexperienced translators to come back to a certain project once they've gotten better.
In order to get better, they need to practice, for people to practice they translate materials they are interested in.

When we turn people away, they will either translate it on a personal space or they will move on to another project who will accept them.

I have no objections if a project lead and a translator form a mutual agreement, on the progress of the project, if that means translator should be relocated to another project or that s/he will take a break.

However, i strongly disagree to codify any such policies that will give project leads any form of "automatic right" which will give them authority to bar a registered translator from a project without reason or because they are considered "bad" without giving them sufficient notice or duration to translate and improve.
"Please note, we have added a consequence for failure.Any contact with the chamber floor will result in an unsatisfactory mark on your official test record, followed by death. Good luck."

@Onizukademongto
User avatar
cloudii
Project Translator
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:30 pm
Favourite Light Novel: Ahouka!
Location: awkward buttface
Contact:

Re: Rule Ratification: Contributor Agreement (Wiki) Version

Post by cloudii »

Summary of Oni's Points:
  1. We are open to everyone, unless you've broken a rule. End of story.
  2. No individual can be barred from a project on the basis of skill, unless they've broken a rule.
  3. However, Project Managers and new translators are encouraged to reach a mutual agreement so the new translator has the opportunity to improve. Possibilities could include, but is not limited to:
    • Organizing a mentor who will check the translation (TLC) and correct it for accuracy.
    • Recommending the new contributor to start off working on side stories, prologues, or epilogues.
    • Recommending the contributor to temporarily relocate to an easier Baka-Tsuki project to improve their skills (discouraged).
Can we agree to taken Oni's words are rule? In other words, this issue is settled.

(FYI: earlier I moved some posts about the Reader Agreement to the reader agreement thread. That conversation should continue there. ;D)

@Cthaeh: Actually, I think we could just have re-translation policy. In other words, anyone is completely free to make a total re-translation. Total re-translations should be made on a separate page, and both versions should be linked on the Project Overview Page UNLESS one of the parties agrees to have their particular version removed.
Twitter: @cloudiirain | BT Userpage | OreShura Translator | Biblia Editor (@HereticLNT) | Clockwork Editor (@HereticLNT)
Post Reply

Return to “Feedback on Rules”