At 09:07 PM 5/24/2008, Ray Saintonge wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
IF the original writers couldn't be bothered to do it properly,
that is not
the burden of the copyeditors to fix. It's the burden of the
writers to come
back, and *properly* present the source material so it doesn't need to be fixed any more.
So then whose responsibility is it to check whether what the writer says is consistent with the source? I'm not even suggesting that the writer acted improperly, just that he misread his source. The writer can't check himself, because he's likely to make the same mistake. You have absolved the copyeditor from any responsibility in this. Who's left?
It's nobody's responsibility and it is everyone's. If we have flagged revisions, verification is part of the task of the user with flag privileges. But if we are keeping anything like the present process, it is nobody's specific responsibility to actually do it. That, indeed, is part of the problem. In our distaste for bureaucracy, we have rigorously avoided specific responsibilities. Some kind of (voluntary) assignment of articles for review might become part of the process. One thing that really does not work at present: people check sources. It was fine. Then someone comes along later and checks the same source. It's still fine. And many editors can waste time this way, until and unless there is an easy way to leave a mark that you checked it, you are now taking additional responsibility for its accuracy. That's what I meant by suggesting a Sources page. All it would take, for each source covered, is "Validated ~~~~".