I request that Rule #27 be reviewed, and potentially clarified with a note; but I am ambivalent about asking for it to be changed in substance.
Google Translate of articles written in a different language must be the worst “text-spinner” yet invented.
This is explicitly prohibited by forum rules:
27. Using automated translation tools to post translated content in Local boards is not allowed.
I almost raised this exact rule in the Ratimov thread. However, #27 prohibits posting automated translations
“in Local boards”—not in Global.
Given how badly some users (including several untrustworthy DTs) are hairsplitting and rules-lawyering, I decided not to bring it up.
The problem with broadening that rule to prohibit
all posting of machine-translated content is that the forum’s main language is English, and its primary administrative language is English. Translated content from Local boards must oftentimes be posted in Global, for reasons ranging from scam investigations, to the Meta discussion of Local staff and Local merit sources, to—well, I can think of
many valid reasons for this; and the reasons are not restricted to any particular board. And sometimes, it may even be reasonably necessary to post a translation of an entire article or post in Global. Overall, it would be unreasonable to expect that all such translations be done by a human.
Furthermore, as a practical matter, there are limited staff with the necessary language competency for moderating each Local board. If the posting of automated translations in Local were allowed, then it is foreseeable that the problems thus created would be uncontrollable. Whereas Global has much more manpower.
IIUC, the rule must stop Local users from sigspamming and/or inappropriately multiposting by such means, and/or stop inauthentic users, especially spammers, from using automated translation tools to attempt posting in boards where they actually know nothing about the local language. The potential problems with automated translation in Global are subtly but significantly different.
The question raised in the Ratimov case is already covered by the plagiarism rule. However, it may be wise to add a note to #27 clarifying that (a) it does not apply in Global, and (b)
Rule #33 and its note prohibit using machine translation to plagiarize anywhere, whether in a Local board or not.It
may also be wise to
somewhat broaden Rule #27 to restrict
certain types of posts made in Global with automated translation. However, it would be difficult to do this in a way that is (a) concise
(= shorter than a typical nullius post), (b) fully fair, without “gotchas”, to people who have a legitimate reason to use automated translation, and (c) resistant to hairsplitting and rules-lawyering by those who don’t. I invite discussion of how best the objectives of the forum rules could be achieved on this point.
In the spirit of the rules, so as for the letter thereof.Thanks.
What if a member just translates one article word for word? And presents the article as if in his own name «In this article I would like to touch upon such a theme as» and adds many sources to make it look like he used all of them when writing.
It is obviously plagiarism. Not only “copy and paste”, but a definitive example of
extreme plagiarism by a remorseless, habituated plagiarist whose response is to deny that he is doing anything whatsoever wrong, to insist that he will continue to do it, and to counterattack
ad hominem against anybody who accuses him.
What
Ratimov is doing is indefensible. ← Cover up the name, and you will see that a Newbie account doing the same thing would be instantly permabanned—depending on its post history, perhaps even nuked. Anybody who defends it is untrustworthy and has untrustworthy judgment. I have trust-excluded people for much less; and I have
I even red-tagged cryptohunter for much less, when it comes to cheap rationalizations of plagiarism.