Re: What to look for in a technical editor

Subject: Re: What to look for in a technical editor
From: Martha J Davidson <editrix -at- nemasys -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 11:21:22 -0700


I thought I'd be able to stay out of this; it didn't last...

At 04:15 PM 5/22/2003 +1000, Michael West wrote:

If I work as a writer in an organization that
assigns unqualified people to perform style and
copy-editing of my work

Here's where I see the flaw in your argument: it's certainly
possible to perform adequate style and copy edits without
understanding the material you're editing, but it's just as
possible that one of those style or copy edits would change
the meaning of the words. An editor who suggests such a
change is indeed working from "ignorance," that is, a lack
of knowledge about the material.

I know; I've worked with such editors at more than one
job. In all cases, because it was up to me to incorporate
the suggestions of the editor, I could determine where
those suggestions might harm a document. On the other
hand, it took extra time on my part to wade through edits
that changed the meaning. In some cases, I could see
where the editor was confused and modified my sentence
accordingly, but in other cases, an informed reader would
not have been confused.

There
are others whose mastery of technical subject matter
is likewise incomplete.

Yes, but do I want them editing my work? If an editor
who doesn't understand what I'm writing about suggests
a structural change to a document that obscures the
material by putting topics that "look the same" near
each other when this rearrangement interrupts a higher-
level flow that mirrors a user's workflow, is that useful?

In both cases I would agree that there exist
opportunities for improvement, but throwing
around words like "ignorant" is not likely to
produce the desired result.

In this case, "ignorant" is equivalent to your "incomplete
mastery of technical subject matter"--nothing more. I
don't see anything more sinister in Andrew's or anyone
else's arguments in this thread.

martha

--
Martha Jane {Kolman | Davidson}
Dances With Words
editrix -at- nemasys -dot- com

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
--Albert Einstein


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Robohelp X3, from eHelp, lets you quickly and easily create professional Help systems for all your Windows and Web-based applications, including Net.
Order RoboHelp X3 in May and receive a $100 mail-in rebate, PLUS
free RoboScreenCapture and WebHelp Merge Module.
Order RoboHelp today: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.



References:
Re: What to look for in a technical editor: From: Andrew Plato
Re: What to look for in a technical editor: From: dmbrown
Re: What to look for in a technical editor: From: Michael West
Re: What to look for in a technical editor: From: dmbrown
Re: What to look for in a technical editor: From: Michael West

Previous by Author: RE: Exploitation is a two-way street (was a bunch of other th reads)
Next by Author: Re: re Basing Word Styles on Normal or Body Text?
Previous by Thread: Re: What to look for in a technical editor
Next by Thread: RE: What to look for in a technical editor


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads