On 5/3/13 3:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 04/05/2013 09:22, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
GEN-ART is a good example, but actual document editing is much more work
and arguably, less rewarding than a review. So I think this can only
succeed with professional (=paid) editors.
I think I disagree, if we can find the knack of effective crowd-sourcing.
We do after all have several hundred native English speakers active
in the IETF, which would mean each one would have to volunteer for
less than one draft per year and we'd be done.
Variously as an individual contributor, shepherd and chair I have asked
for source text so that I could provide large copy edits which the
authors could then apply at their leisure. I have also asked for
volunteers to help with heavy edits. IMHO polishing a document for
consumption is a very useful form of contribution, which doesn't
necessarily require either deep technical background in the area or
personal involvement in the draft.
I don't know how much experience you have with professional editors.
Apart from the RFC Editor crew, my experience has been "mixed". Somebody
a year or three ago (the last time we had this exact same discussion)
pointed out the differences between copy-editors and technical editors.
One difference is that the latter are much more expensive. Copy-editors
tend to be rule-driven; technical editors are supposed to understand
the material.
Most working group participants already have a deeper background in the
area and familiarity with the jargon than a copy-editor.
Brian