Topic: Nolan Chart News
Cite?! Cite?! Some thoughts on cites and links for writers and approvers.by Random Outlier
(libertarian)
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
A recent minor dustup with the Nolan Chart approval process prompts me to offer some thoughts about documenting articles.
There seem to be two sillinesses at our margins. One is, "I cite, therefore I am." The other is, "It is so because I say so." The rational discusssion is in the middle where most of us toil.
Challenge One in explaining a process is proving you know what you're talking about. Without stepping outside the comfortable semi-anonymity here, I can't do that.
I just report that the published professional work from my typewriter and editing desk totals thousand of articles -- straight journalism, polemics. even some fiction beyond the paid flack work for politicians. Readers are free to believe or disbelieve any of that without retort from me.
(At that you legitimately ask why my work here is often less than professional. The answer lies somewhere in that general view that only a rare editor can vet his own stuff properly, even though he may be quite good at improving other copy.)
An editor's job is to edit, to make the writer's work better work. And, my, how the egos clash as that principle is applied. Professionals just get used to it, fight for their opinions to some reasonable degree, then get on with things.
Much internet writing is solo, not edited, seat-of-the-pants, WAG-based, and unconventional, to say the least. That's its beauty and its horror, occasional brilliant creativity but frequent pure trash. In the highly edited old media a truly grotesquely written article is unusual because of structured editing procedures. On the internet, pure trash is as fleas on a stray hound's back, though Nolan Chart was never quite that bad.
When Google demanded a vetting process, Walt created what I think is the most workable plan possible with the resources we have.
From my point of view it is working rather well. My only personal issue was what I considered a single laughable rejection for lack of "documentation" in a semi-satire. That's been resolved rather amicably and gives me the peg for a general take on citations and documentation..
1. Citing authority is necessary when you assert something (a) important to your argument and (b) your assertion is likely to be questioned by reasonable and well-informed readers. "Reasonable and well-informed" is important. You'll never satisfy the moronic or the recreational literary ankle biters. Trying will merely frustrate you and annoy the literates in your audience.
2, You sometimes cite authority simply to lend credence to your general approach if your overall treatment of the topic is likely to be controversial -- of if you just want to take wimpy refuge in what others have said.
3. Sometimes you cite for the readers' convenience if you refer to something rather far removed from your piece in time or space. If, for instance, a Nolan Chart writer refers to a work on some other site or which appeared here long ago, a citation might be useful as a reader aid even if not necessary for "proof." It isn't always mandatory. We want to be reader-friendly, but that obligation has practical limits.
4. Some genres need no documentation and suffer from it -- satire, humor, parable, exhortative, inspirational, poetic (Footnotes in The Gettysburg Address? ....an Ogden Nash poem? ... a P.J. O'Rourke farce? ... The Beatitudes? ... "King Lear?)
5. And this is maybe the most important point of all: The quality of the writing is not necessarily a function of the number of cites or even their source. Academia and the media are full true tales of scholars and writers citing themselves, subtly or otherwise. Also, citations and links may do no more than give new exposure to outdated "evidence" or things that are simply wrong. In the highest quality exposition, selection and presentation of cited evidence is as grueling and time-consuming as the writing process itself.
6. Related to the above is the trite but correct observation that journalism is a first draft of history, written under time pressure that would drive an Ivory Tower denizen to drink. Journalism is not scholarship (though at its best it may approach it) and was never intended to be so. That's why it relies so heavily on narration and attribution -- "he said" or "the senator argued" or "the police claimed." Attribution is an informal citation. Like formal cites it can be used with or without integrity.
I know of no way to tell writers and editors how to apply citation principles across the board, and wouldn't if I could. Random Outlier has been known to err in print. shocking as you may find that fact. So as a veteran literary sinner I try not to throw big rocks, though I'll sometimes flip a pebble, just to get a fellow sinner's attention.
This also completely ignores the other editing function of fixing mechanical errors, solecisms large and small, and unclear formulations. As I said once in the lounge, I'd kill for a good editor and a sharp proof reader. Unfortunately I can't get one on that basis. I'd have to pay money for a guy to feritt out my tipos. And I'm too cheep.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Random Outlier only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Random Outlier is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
