All, For the longest time I have been wondering what copyeditors per se could do on CZ without basically a copyediting process becoming a complication or bottleneck that does not pay for itself in terms of ultimate results.
But now it hits me. What CZ needs is the same as what Wikipedia needs, namely, a clear set of common copyediting standards, and a group of people to consult about those standards. In the wiki spirit, I doubt that these people should have top-down control over individual articles and their copyediting; ultimately, that must be left in the hands of editors. But editors, being reasonable, will be only to happy to consult a group of real copyeditors. I think that we should advertise for a volunteer Chief Copyeditor, who has real authority not to specify how articles must read, but what the rules of mechanics are, and to poll people about what they should be. That person might, then, put together a specifically named workgroup of professional copyeditors and other language experts who could be consulted. Obviously, these people would be only too welcome to whip all the uneven WP articles into shape, from a copyeditor's point of view. My hope and belief is that editors and copyeditors alike will not begin to establish a de facto copyediting step prior to approval. It would be better if this work is informal, and, being informal, less of a potential burden on progress. What do you think? Reply at: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,372.0.html --Larry _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
