In this paper we examine the model of crowdsourcing for translation and compare it with Machine Translation (MT). The large volume of material to be translated, the translation of this material into many languages combined with tight deadlines lead enterprises today to follow either crowdsourcing and/or MT. Crowdsourcing translation shares many characteristics with MT, as both can cope with high volume, perform at high speed, and reduce the translation cost. MT is an older technology, whereas crowdsourcing is a new phenomenon gaining much ground over time, mainly through Web 2.0. Examples and challenges of both models will be discussed and the paper is closed with future prospects regarding the combination of crowdsourcing and MT, so that they are not regarded as opponents. These prospects are partially based on the results of a survey we conducted. Based on our background, experience, and research, this paper covers aspects both from the point of view of translation studies and computational linguistics applications as well as of information sciences, and particularly the development of the Web regarding user-generated content.
BrabhamDC. Crowdslapping the government: first amendment protections for the crowd in government crowdsourcingventures. Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago, IL, 2008,pp. 1–32.
HaythornthwaiteC. Crowds and communities: light and heavyweight models of peer production. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Waikoloa, HI, 2009, pp. 1–10.
HolleyR. Crowdsourcing: how and why should libraries do it?D-Lib Magazine. Corporation for National Research Initiative (CNRI), 2010.
11.
GeislerGWillardGWhitworthE. Crowdsourcing the indexing of film and television media. Proceedings of the 73rd ASIS&T Annual Meeting, 47, 2010.
12.
AlborsJRamosJHervasJ. New learning network paradigms: communities of objectives, crowdsourcing, wikis and open source. International Journal of Information Management2008; 28(3): 194–202.
13.
PerrinoS. User-generated translation: the future of translation in a Web 2.0 environment. The Journal of Specialised Translation2009; 12: 55–78, www.jostrans.org/issue12/art_perrino.pdf (accessed June 2011).
14.
Díaz CintasJMuñoz SánchezP. Fansubs: audiovisual translation in an amateur environment. The Journal of Specialised Translation2006; 6: 37–52, http://www.jostrans.org/issue06/art_diaz_munoz.php (accessed June 2011).
15.
JordanW. From rule-breaking to ROM-hacking: theorizing the computer game-as-commodity, situated play. Proceedings of DiGRA 2007, 2007.
16.
O’HaganM. Evolution of user-generated translation: fansubs, translation hacking and crowdsourcing, Journal of Internationalisation and Localisation2009; 1: pp. 94–121.
17.
Pérez GonzálezL. Fansubbing anime: insights into the butterfly effect of globalisation on audiovisual. Translation Perspectives2006; 14(14): 260–277.
CroninM. The translation crowd. Revista tradumàtica2010; 08 (available online) .
25.
WolfTNguyenTDamianD. Does distance still matter?Software Process: Improvement and Practice2008; 13(6): 493–510.
26.
KitturAKrautRE. Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in Wikipedia: quality through coordination. Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, New York, 2008, pp. 37–46.
27.
Del GiudiceK. Crowdsourcing credibility: the impact of audience feedback on Web page credibility. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology2010; 47(1): 1–9.
28.
KeenA. The cult of the amateur: how today’s internet is killing our culture and assaulting our economy. London: Brealey, 2007.
HubermanB. Crowdsourcing and attention. Computer2008; 41(11): 103–105.
31.
MooreTDServaMA. Understanding member motivation for contributing to different types of virtual communities: a proposed framework. Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGMIS CPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research: the Global Information Technology Workforce, St Louis, MO, 2007, pp. 153–158.
32.
KuznetsovS. Motivations of contributors to Wikipedia. SIGCAS Computing Society. 2006; 36(2): 1.
KostakosV. Is the crowd’s wisdom biased? A quantitative analysis of three online communities. Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering2009; 4: 251–255.
35.
HoffmannL. Crowd control. Communications of the ACM2009; 52(3): 16–17.
36.
KellyK. More anonymity is good. The World Question Center, www.edge.org/q2006/q06_4.html (2006, accessed June 2011).
HolmströmJE. Report on interlingual scientific and technical dictionaries. Paris: Unesco, 1951.
44.
PierceJRCarrollJBHampEPHaysDGHockettCFDettingerAGPerlisA. Language and machines: computers in translation and linguistics. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, 1966, Publication 1416.
45.
KayM. Machine translation. American Journal of Computational Linguistics1982; 8(2): 74–78.
46.
KayM. The proper place of men and machines in language translation. Machine Translation1997; 12: 3–23.
47.
BrownPCockeJPietraDPietraVJelinekFMercerRRoossinP. A statistical approach to language translation. 12th COLING, Budapest, Hungary, 1988, pp. 71–76.
48.
van der MeerJ. Fully automatic useful translation. Proceedings of EAMT 11th Annual Conference, 2009, p. 5.
ForcadaM. Open source machine translation: an opportunity for minor languages. Proceedings of the 5th SALTMIL Workshop on Minority Languages: ‘Strategies for developing machine translation for minority languages’, 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2006), Genoa, Italy, 2006, pp. 1–6.
51.
PapineniKRoukosSWardTZhuWJ. BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. 40th ACL 2001, Philadelphia, PE, 2001, pp. 311–318.
KoehnP. A Web-based interactive computer aided translation tool. Proceedings of the ACL interactive poster and demonstration sessions, Singapore, 2009.
54.
AustermühlF. Electronic tools for translators. Manchester: St Jerome, 2001.
55.
GaspariF. The role of online MT in webpage translation. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Manchester, 2007.
56.
ThickeL. Optimized MT for higher translation quality. MultilingualOctober/November2009: 9–11.
NagaoMJensenKRoesnerDHajicovaETsujiiJTomitaM. Panel on: language engineering: the real bottle neck of natural language processing. Proceedings of the international conference on computational linguistics (COLING), 1988.
59.
DoddingtonG. Automatic evaluation of machine translation quality using n-gram co-occurrence statistics. Proceedings of HLT 2002 (2nd conference on human language technology), 2002, pp. 128–132.
60.
SatanjeevBLavieA. METEOR: an automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. Proceedings of the ACL 2005 workshop on intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation measures for MT and/or summarization, 2005.
61.
BabychBHartleyA. Extending the BLEU MT evaluation metric with frequency ratings. Proceedings of ACL 2004, 2004: 621–628.
62.
SnoverMDorrBSchwartzRMicciullaLMakhoulJ. A study of translation edit rate with targeted human annotation. Proceedings of Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, 2006.
63.
SomersH. Round-trip translation: what is it good for?Proceedings of Australasian Language Technology Workshop (ALTW 2005), 2005, pp. 127–133.
O’BrienS. Methodologies for measuring the correlations between post-editing effort and machine text translatability. Machine Translation2005; 19(1): 37–58.
66.
FlournoyRDuranC. Machine translation and document localization at Adobe: from pilot to production. MT Summit XII: proceedings of the twelfth Machine Translation Summit, Ottawa, Ontario, 2009.
67.
van der MeerJ. The profit of sharing: let a thousand mt systems bloom. TAUS User Conference2009, Portland, OR.
AnastasiouD. Crowdsourcing and machine translation. Proceedings of the Localisation Research Centre LRC XIV, Localisation in the Cloud, Limerick, 2009.
74.
MueggeU. Fully automatic high quality machine translation of restricted text: a case study. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Translating and the Computer, London, 2006.
AllenJ. Post-editing. Computers and translation: a translators guide, SomersH. (ed.). Benjamins Translation Library, 35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003, pp. 297–317.
77.
GrovesD. Bringing humans into the loop: localization with machine translation at Traslan. Proceedings of the American Association for Machine Translation (AMTA), 2008, pp. 11–22.
