Loading...
 

Peer Review

Context

This practice is useful for ensuring quality in any Collaborative translation initiative, but it is particularly relevant where you are tapping into a large crowd of unknown contributors.

Problem description

Ensuring quality in Collaborative translation can be a challenge.

Solution

One way to deal with the quality issue is to allow members of the community to review and correct each other's work.

This Peer Review can be an explicit part of the process, meaning that every contribution is assigned a reviser whose job will be to ensure its quality.

But the review can also be implicit, meaning that everybody in the community keeps his eyes open for errors, and is allowed to correct them when they find them.

Links to related patterns

Real-life examples

  • In its Translation crowdsourcing initiative, Facebook makes use of both implicit and explicit Peer Review. Any member of the community can vote on competing translations (explicit review), but additionally, in-house revisers check the "best" translation before it is actually published.
  • Wikipedia is a very good example of how 100% implicit peer review can achieve high quality levels.