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: Self-editing From:Richard Hamilton <dick -at- rlhamilton -dot- net> To:"techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:03:07 -0800
Hi Shawn,
I agree 100% on having SMEs proof for technical accuracy. In essence, the docs are as much a reflection on their work as they are on yours.
That said, they can't be relied on for copy-edit and pure proofreading (though I have known some who were really good at spotting problems).
And, yes, proofing your own work is pretty much guaranteed to lead to something slipping through.
Richard
-------
XML Press
XML for Technical Communicators http://xmlpress.net
hamilton -at- xmlpress -dot- net
On Nov 3, 2014, at 9:32, Shawn <shawn -at- cohodata -dot- com> wrote:
> Good thread Richard.
>
> It ever so slightly ties in with my earlier thread on documentation workflow.
>
> > 1) Is your work edited by a dedicated editor?
> > 2) If not, what strategies do you use to either peer-edit or self-edit your work?
>
> No I don't have a dedicated editor and I suspect most of us do not.
>
> A dedicated editor isn't necessary, unless we are talking about a professional publishing house. Within a corporation, I strongly support that SMEs should be assigned the responsibility to proof read a tech writer's work. There should be one or more people available to sign-off on your work. Most importantly, a technical writer should NEVER proof their own work. Although waiting a week or two will help with self-proof reading, it is quite unlikely that you will catch all your own errors.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Richard Hamilton <dick -at- rlhamilton -dot- net> wrote:
> I'm writing an article about editing, and I'm curious about what the folks on this list think about the state of editing in the corporate world today.
>
> I'm interested in any thoughts you have, but in particular, I have two questions:
>
> 1) Is your work edited by a dedicated editor?
>
> 2) If not, what strategies do you use to either peer-edit or self-edit your work?
>
> Best regards,
> Richard Hamilton
> -------
> XML Press
> XML for Technical Communicators
>http://xmlpress.net
> hamilton -at- xmlpress -dot- net
>
>
> --
> Shawn Connelly
> Technical writer
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Read about how Georgia System Operation Corporation improved teamwork, communication, and efficiency using Doc-To-Help | http://bit.ly/1lRPd2l
