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.
> On Jul 27, 2005, at 3:21 PM, Gene Kim-Eng wrote:
> >
> > Dangerfield declaring that we don't get no respect, and to any
> > outsider looking in the back and forth on it just helps reinforce
> > the notion that there is no "profession" when those doing the work
> > can't even agree on what the qualifications are. IMO, the only
>
> The funny thing in all this is that certs are relatively new concepts
> to human civilization. In the ancient world, people went by
> reputation
> (perhaps teacher) and demonstrated skill. The funny thing is
> that a lot
> of people still do that today. When was the last time someone was
> actually impressed by the degree you have? The degree gets you a foot
> in the door, and that's it. So much for that "certification".
Degrees lost their value because many holders of them proved in the
workplace that they could not have possibly earned them.
> > open discussion should be on developing a governing body, and
> >
>
> When people start to argue for censorship and the topics are not
> obscene (regardless of how widely you want to construe that), that
> sends out danger signals.
I think you are misreading his intended message, which I understood to be,
"The first thing that I think we need to settle is the question of a
governing body that will develop criteria for any of a varity of proposed
certifications. I would organize and limit public discussion about
certification to this topic if I could, so that we can actually make some
progress. If we do not agree to set limits on discussion, this discussion
will be no different than its predecessors over the years that many of us
recall with no small amount of pain."
Every profession has their own in-house
> discussions and battles.
I think it's a mistake to call technical writing a profession, and whether
the true professions -- fields that require many years of highly specialized
education, which ours manifestly does not -- discuss, much less battle, over
comparable things is arguable.
By definition, techical writing is not a profession. Many years of highly
specialized education is not required for technical writing, and that is a
basic description of what "profession" refers to.
Being a professional technical writer or a professional technical editor is
not the same thing as being a member of the technical writing profession,
primarily because there is no such profession.
Bonnie Granat | http://www.GranatEdit.com
bgranat -at- granatedit -dot- com
Cambridge, Massachusetts, US
Now Shipping -- WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word! Easily create online
Help. And online anything else. Redesigned interface with a new
project-based workflow. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Doc-To-Help 2005 now has RoboHelp Converter and HTML Source: Author
content and configure Help in MS Word or any HTML editor. No
proprietary editor! *August release. http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
