In a message dated 5/24/2008 6:10:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:

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?>>>

-------- That would be a good argument if we only had two members of Wikipedia. Most of the articles on which I've worked, have dozens if not hundreds of members making changes.

If someone wants to *verify* the sources match the presented quotes or paraphrases that would be one task, but I would not refer to a verification agent as a "copy editor" personally. To me copyediting involves the re-writing of the material to make it more readable. Not to verify evidence that it accurately reflects the underlying sources.

So it appears this *dichotomy* is a *trichotomy* after all, if you will. But remembering that our "writers" are not creative writers in the sense of making up a story, but rather every writer is supposed to be reflecting their sources. Some write poorly in the first place, and need assistance in framing the language better. Not necessarily in verifying the source material.

Others may need help in verifying the source material, but I've never been referring to that particular aspect of things.

Will Johnson

************** Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.

(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)