TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: An editor's duties (was: Online Document Reviews)
Subject:Re: An editor's duties (was: Online Document Reviews) From:Fabien Vais <phantoms -at- POP -dot- TOTAL -dot- NET> Date:Wed, 13 May 1998 10:27:17 -0400
Yves,
Everything I've read about technical editing (I teach the subject at a local
university) indicates that the editor MUST NOT simply take over, "regardless
of the author's approval". The author remains the author of the document.
Your role, as editor, is to ENHANCE AND CLARIFY the text. The editor must
work WITH the author to obtain a consensus on the changes, PARTICULARLY the
major changes. These changes are referred to as "macro editing" and include
such things as reorganizing the order of the text sections, adding a whole
paragraph, etc. Macro editing changes MUST BE APPROVED by the author. On the
other hand, "micro editing" changes include more minor changes such as
typos, omissions, a better term here and there, etc. These can be
"mentioned" to the author, but in most cases, the author will trust the
editor to take care of them and will approve them all "en bloc".
Therefore, although I believe a full time Technical Editor has a great deal
of power in a company, I also strongly believe that the author of a document
remains the author. So, major changes should require his/her approval. After
all, if the editor decides to REWRITE the whole document, or large portions
of it, who is the final author? Furthermore, I do not believe that any
author, particularly a good technical writer, would abdicate their right of
authorship over a document to a technical editor. Both people must learn to
work together to improve and enhance the text FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
ULTIMATE CLIENT - the reader.
Just my opinion.
Fabien Vais
phantoms -at- total -dot- net
At 12:02 PM 5/12/98 EDT, you wrote:
>Janice Gelb:
>
>You wrote: < As an editor, I have been hesitant to do online reviews (...) I
>don't know which changes the writer will approve and which he or she won't
>(...) >
>
>Excuse me for splitting hairs, but isn't it an editor's job to make changes
>regardless of the author's approval? Once the manuscript is dead, the editor
>takes over. The "Chicago Manual of Style" isn't the Gospel, but it does have
>some wortwhile indications on this phase of the editorial process. Am I missing
>something obvious?
>
>Yves J
>yves_jeaurond -at- cbc -dot- ca
>
>
>
>
>
