I've got a degree in technical communication, and I used to make stylistic edits all the time -- go through articles and totally rewrite them for directness and clarity. But stylistic edits don't stick; it's like footprints in beach sand. A good implementation of stable versions could help this.
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/05/2008, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Indeed in my "day job" as a computer science academic, this sort of concern is making copyediting fall out of favor quite rapidly. It's mostly been phased out for unrelated reasons (cutting expenses), but the few journals that still insist on doing extensive editing for style (like anything the IEEE runs) annoy many authors, as we have to keep re-reading our own drafts to figure out what they screwed up this time. It can even end up in comical exchanges of drafts where the author will change something back to what they actually meant to say, the copyeditor will change it back to conform to "house style", the author will revert the change in the next exchange, etc.
Speaking as someone who does do a fair amount of copy-editing, I have to say that there is a qualitative difference between editing a decently written article with a primary editor and good referencing, and the overwhelming majority of articles that are poorly referenced hodge-podges of whatever information different drive-by editors happened to insert. I tend to work on the decent articles at the invitation of the primary editor, and when doing so will read whatever online references are available and will ask a lot of questions (talk page or FAC/GA/peer review page) to help the editor clarify what was meant. Even in relatively well-written articles, I have found many instances where the reference sources don't match up with the material in the article that they are intended to provide references for. In "average" articles, usually a third of the references fail to match the statement they're being used to reference. I've also seen some relatively worrisome "ownership" of poorly sourced, ungrammatical articles that are written so poorly as to be confusing, contradictory, or nearly unreadable - to the point where correction of a typo or spelling error leads to instant reversion or an inquiry on a talk page leads to beratement of the questioner. So - is the problem the copy editor not understanding, or is the problem the quality of the work in the first place?
Risker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l