Talk:Technical writer

Article on technical communication
Hmmmm. There is no article on Technical communication (it's a redirect to this page), which is what the STC focuses on. The role of Technical communication/a Technical communicator is a superset of Technical writing/a Technical writer... &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:28, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Absolutely right. How's this for a start? Elf | Talk 02:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Technical writing vs. professional writing
So what's the difference between "technical writing" and "professional writing"? I've seen professional writing talked about, but I don't really know what it is. -- Creidieki 21:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A professional writer is one who gets paid for writing. Could be technical writing, travel writing, fiction writing, whatever. Most technical writers are professional writers--even though I do it and enjoy it, I can't imagine anyone doing it only for fun (compared to, say, many unpublished fiction writers).  Elf | Talk 04:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL. You can't? Is somebody paying you for your work on Wikipedia?? Tell us who! S  B Harris 03:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to techwriter.com
I have removed the links to techwriter.com because this site specifically promotes a particular commercial organisation and appears to contain little general information about technical writing per se. If there is such info somewhere on the site then any new link should be directly to that information. -IMOɲ.

Grammar changes
I changed this: Technical writers are responsible for creating media that are helpful, accurate, comprehensible, and accessible to the intended audience.

To this: Technical writers are responsible for creating media that is helpful, accurate, comprehensible, and accessible to the intended audience. AuroraMae 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The latter is correct: since "media" describes a single object, it isn't grammatically appropriate to use "are" to describe it -- even if plurality is assumed. And yes, I realize the irony in affirming a corrected "correction" on the edit side of a Technical writer page when concision is paramount.


 * Actually - not to be too pedantic - media is the plural of medium and does not describe a single object. It covers more than one avenue of communications and should therefore be used as you would use the word data (the plural of datum). The correct usage is "data are..." and so the correct usage is "media are...".


 * Examples of different media include print publishing, display-based offline publishing such as CD-ROM and DVD-ROM-based information resources, online publishing such as "help" files, intranets, extranets, "traditional" Web pages including forms, wikis, interactive PDF forms, CBT/interactive video, PDAs, even production approaches such as single-sourcing wherein a single source document may be required to appear in several different media and so must be written exceptionally carefully, and so on. Even writing for content management systems requires skills that differ from those used for print publishing, for example.


 * However, this article has been hacked about so badly by some pretty clumsy and inconsistent editing that IMHO it's probably not worth the hassle involved in fixing all the errors that have been introduced (no matter how well-meant). AncientBrit (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Creating separate articles for 'Technical Writer' and 'Technical Writing'
What does everyone think about creating a separate page for techical writer and technical writing? The whole 'technical communication'section should have a different title, as a new article is going to be created for that subject. If no one objects, I'm going to change the header and split the articles. AuroraMae 03:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes: I changed 'technical communication' to 'qualifications' and reorganized. I also added a 'methodology' sub-header. The article still needs work, but now its organized better and makes more sense as an article about technical writers.AuroraMae 03:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think its best to have a separate product page from the skill page in all professions. Often the end user of the product doesn't (or need not) care about the skill required to produce the product. Likewise, staffing professionals and customers of the skill don't care about (or are overwhelmed by) the critical details of the product, which is why they must hire someone with the skill. I added user guides and documentations as the product pages. Oicumayberight 08:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I split the articles; technical writer is its own entity now, as is technical writing.AuroraMae 14:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. The last version basically defined a technical writer as the guy responsible for upkeep of documentation. That confuses the work product with the work. "A scientist is responsible for keeping up the supply of fresh scientific papers..." S  B Harris 18:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Linked articles
Ideas about Structured writing might be welcome. Also I am a bit surprised (as a technical writer that uses and implements DocBook) to see only a link to DITA. DITA has a clear and bright future in technical documention, but is not so representative of the present situation and needs of many companies that involve technical writers. Just my thought. Franciszek (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

possibilities
I apologize in advance if I am overstepping bounderies by placing this job posting: I thought you were to put it mildy so I deleted it. I apologize in advance if anyone thinks I am overstepping bounderies by doing so.

misc. changes
To whom it may concern: I made various changes but nothing major. Apparently whoever wrote this is big into API, as there were numerous references to this very small niche of tech writing, including having that as a general tech writing reference. Also having been in the "biz" for 20+ yrs and having met/worked with many tech writers, I can say with great confidence that many tech writers have never even heard of the "Chicago Manual," let alone adhered to it. No offense meant to whoever included it and pardon for any taken.

Indexing
I think Indexing should link to Subject indexing but I am not sure so I added the disambiguation needed rather than guess. Aureomarginata (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible sources
I've scoped out a few sources, but their acceptability in concordance with WP:IRS might be suspect.
 * US Dept. of Labor statistics site on occupational outlook
 * "I'd Rather Be Writing" site Q&A about technical writing careers
 * Business News Daily article about what technical writing is
 * Internet Writing Journal article from 1998 about what a technical writer does

Do these sites pass the reliability test according to site policy? We as subject matter experts might be able to independently verify the information within, but that isn't sufficient. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

For
For the perhaps this page helps http://competencies.technical-communication.org/profiling-tool.html go to 4.1 Chief335 (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Notable Technical Writers
I removed a number of "writers" from this list who dont appear to be "notable technical writers" just writers that once were technical writers - which is hardly noteworthy for this article. If we dont see any reliable citations that they are notable technical writers then we should really remove them again, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information
The following information is inaccurate: "The job title emerged in the US during World War II,[5] although it wasn't until 1951 that the first Help Wanted: Technical Writer ad was published.[6] In fact, the title Technical Writer wasn't added to the US Bureau of Labor Statistic's Occupational Employment Handbook until 2010.[7]" If sources 5 and 6 have been paraphrased correctly, then those sources are mistaken. I notice that those sources are not peer-reviewed publications. The job title "Technical Writer" emerged in the US before World War II; moreover, the first newspaper help wanted ad for a technical writer was published before 1951. The paraphrase of information from source 7 is wrong. Source 7 doesn't say that "Technical Writer" was added to the handbook in 2010; it says that it was given its own (separate) chapter in 2010. Source 7 also states that "Technical Writer" made its debut in the U.S. Employment Service's Dictionary of Occupational Titles in 1943. That doesn't mean, of course, that the job title made its debut in the US in 1943, just in DOT. Chironomia (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Most of the existing references in this article are very outdated; it seems that most contributors to this article were active until about 2010. It may be helpful to run through the entire article and check the accuracy of the sources, maybe even replacing some of them with more recent information. If you know of any credible sources about technical writers after 2019 or 2020, please share. Bl00burry19 (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Technical and Professional Communication
— Assignment last updated by Savmanbanans (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding to 'Environment' Section
This section seems a bit misleading as it describes the work of technical writers, but not their actual workspace--which would be implied by "environment." I am adding a paragraph about the typical work environment of a technical writer, with up-to-date information on remote work and freelancing which has become popularized over the past three years.

If anyone has found recently published information about the work environment of professional technical writers, I would appreciate it if you would link some sources below.

Does anyone else think we should elaborate on usability tests? It seems to be an essential part of professional technical writing but it may belong in its own section. Bl00burry19 (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)