Re: [englishresearch] A BIT OF SURPRISING NEWS RE 1901 CENSUS!!
- I find this post a bit surprising and bordering on racism. How do you know that the transcribers "did not have English as a mother tongue and had no experience of English place names, occupations and personal names"? Do you know what quality control was exercised and by whom? I don't know the answers to these questions either, but I would find out before I posted a message that makes assumptions without, apparently, any real background knowledge.
TOUCHY IN THIS SO CALLED DAY OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
THE ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT THERE ARE ENOUGH PEOPLE IN ENGLAND NEEDING A JOB WHO COULD HAVE DONE THE WORK WITH THEIR ENGLISH HERITAGE AND KNOWLEDGE. I FOR SURE COULD NOT TRNSLATE AN INDIAN CENSUS OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN COUNTRY CENSUS. THIS IS NOT RACISM IT'S LOGICAL FACT. AS I POINT OUT IN ERRORS ON CERTIFICATES DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS FROM NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO TRANSLATE THE ROTTEN HAND WRITING ON AUSTRALIAN CERTIFICATES AND WE GET SOME DREADFUL ERRORS. I HARDLY THINK THAT ANYONE IN INDIA, EVEN IF THEY DO SPEAK ENGLISH HAS MUCH GEOGRAPHICAL AND HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE IN ENGLAND LET ALONE TRANSLATING THE ORIGINAL HANDWRITING. THE CENSUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN ENGLAND. IT ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY PROPER GENEALOGY MINDED PEOPLE TRAINED TO RECOGNISE ERROS NOT INMATES IN A JAIL WHO COULDN'T CARE TWO HOOTS, AND PEOPLE LIVING ON A FOREIGN COUNTRY WHO HAVE PROBABLY NEVER BEEN TO COONSBURY (CONGRESBURY0 OR CANESHAM (KEYNSHAM)
THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT MADE A VERY BAD MISTAKE WHICH THEY HAVE REALISED AND ARE PAYING FOR AT THE PRESENT.
I FOR ONE WILL BE REALLY LOOKING OVER THE INFO I DOWNLOAD WITH A FINE TOOTHCOMB.
All the best
----- Original Message -----
From: "janet reakes" <jreakes@...>
To: "english" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 6:30 AM
Subject: [englishresearch] A BIT OF SURPRISING NEWS RE 1901 CENSUS!!
> I'm pasting this from another list:
> When I pointed out to my MP that some of the 1901 census
> transcription had been done by people on the Indian sub-continent, who
> did not
> have English as a mother tongue and who had no experience of English
> place names, occupations and personal names, he was frankly
> suggested he put a parliamentary question on this.
> Here it is with the reply...
> DL: "To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department,
> how much of the work to transcribe the 1901 census returns on to
> computer was carried on outside the United Kingdom; and if she will
> make a statement."
> Ms. Rosie Winterton (PS, Lord Chancellor's Dept):" QinetiQ Ltd
> appointed Enterprise and Supply Services (ESS) to undertake the
> of the data from the 1901 Census returns. A proportion of this work
> sub-contracted by ESS after full competitive tendering to a commercial
> data input company based in India and Sri Lanka (Hays Document
> Management). The proportion of transcription work undertaken outside
> the United Kingdom was 78%"
> Yes folks that really is seventy eight percent!
> Please feel free to post this message elsewhere if you want.
> Barney Tyrwhitt-Drake
> JANET REAKES