So, in traditional grammar these cases would be considered gerunds, not present participles, because they head noun phrases. Modern grammatical analyses of English (such as the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language) analyse gerunds and present participles as a single construct called the gerund-participle.
In any case, this error is common because some languages (I am personally familiar with Spanish, but probably there are others) have parallel constructions which are identical except for the use of the infinitive instead of the gerund.
For example the English sentence
[A new infusion [of cash] ] [allows [making the film] ].
translates as
[Una nueva inyección [de dinero] ] [permite [hacer la película] ].
The Spanish word hacer is the infinitive form of make, and, for native speakers of Spanish, this error is in fact quite common.
As a Dutchman, I have noticed the discrepancy between the English word and most Continental words. I believe the problem lies in the fact that we have a single all-round, neutral adjective on the Continent—at least your closest neighbours do: Holland, Belgium, France—, while you must make do with tourist or touristy.
Een toeristische attractie (Du.) — a tourist attraction.
This sounds perfectly fine in Dutch; in English the noun tourist, while acceptable, is forced to do the work.
Een toeristische route (Du.) — a tourist route? a touristy route?
Perhaps you will disagree, but neither English word sounds nearly as appropriate as the Dutch adjective; tourist route, arguably the better of the pair, somehow has a hint of modern marketese, while Dutch toeristische route is more neutral.
Moreover, Dutch and French are less ready to use nouns as adjectives, which makes using tourist even less attractive for us than it is for the English. For that reason, we crave a neutral word referring to sight-seeing but not evoking the image of concrete tourists. It is very hard to pin-point the difference in connotation.
Best Answer
This is a very broad question, even if we limit ourselves to changes within the last, say 20 years or so. I'll make a start, though, working from first principles.
Two extremes of learning a language are memorise everything independently and find general rules. The first can lead to difficulties with new words or contexts, while the second tends to generalise too broadly, leading to instances such as your example of informations constructed as a plural of information. Where a student is surrounded by corrective influences such as competent teachers, this can mature to generalisation plus exceptions, which tends to lead to greater fluency. In the absence of corrective influences, however, it is possible for instances of incorrect generalisation to become established in local populations. Over time, this can migrate further afield, particularly if those local populations become recognised authorities in some field.
A second tendency in learning new languages is word-for-word translation, leading to the how do you call it phrase, presumably borrowed from languages such as French, Spanish or German. Examples include various instances of 'ethnic-speak', such as Finglish (Finnish + English) and Chinglish (Chinese + English).
A third tendency is to simplify grammatical structures based on structures in the native languages. An example is the tendency of native Russian speakers to drop articles (a, an, the) in English. Of course, some languages have more complex grammar than English, but if the complexity cannot be expressed in English because English isn't sufficiently expressive in that way, then the complexity tends to get lost in translation (literally).
Putting these all together produces a simpler, more grammatically uniform version of English. That has been the tendency historically, and it is perhaps natural for this to continue in modern times.