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.
Subject:Re: What to look for in a technical editor From:"Michael West" <mbwest -at- bigpond -dot- net -dot- au> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Thu, 22 May 2003 08:38:44 +1000
> That's great, except very few technical writers work in publishing
companies.
> They work at defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, and software
firms,
> etc. None of which are interesting in becoming publishing firms.
Who said "company"? You did. Who said "firm"? You did.
A technical publishing operation can be a one-person shop,
and often is. That does not relieve the publisher of responsibility
for maintaining high standards of accuracy and usability.
> > Expecting subject-matter experts to be
> > intelligent and capable style editors, or expecting style
> > experts to have detailed technical knowledge of an
> > emerging technology, usually ends in unsatisfactory
> > outcomes for the consumer and, somewhat less
> > importantly, frustrating working conditions for writers.
>
> Here we go - another in the endless series of "ignorance is an asset"
> arguments. Except this one has no explanation of why. Just a blanket
"usually
> ends in unsatisfactory outcomes." Whatever that means. Perhaps it means,
> usually ends in the editor being fired for gross incompetence.
>
> Michael, why don't you explain how an editor who has no subject matter
> expertise is going to be more valuable that one who does? How can
ignorance of
> the content be MORE useful?
This is a good example of the uneven distribution of reading
and writing skills among so-called technical writers. I won't
waste time responding to questions about things I never
said in the first place. I've paraphrased my statement in
another post here -- that will have to do.
---
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.