I listened to the Atheists Talk broadcast with Bora Z, and I remember him talking about the things you mentioned in this piece. I remember him saying he thinks that the Web allows for a more democratic filtering of the information people put out there instead of an editor doing the filtering before it reaches the masses. I’d argue with the notion of the Web as democratic, but that’s another comment entirely and one that would firstly explain that editors and copy editors aren’t dictators. We’re collaborators, and we’re skilled professionals. Secondly, that there is nothing inherently democratic about inaccurate information. Thirdly, oh, I said I wasn’t going to go on about that. Sorry.

I’ve been watching as my profession is going through a major transition. I once counted myself among the many in my profession who pooh-poohed the Web and social media as a serious source of accurate information, mostly because I saw all of it, and rightly so, as a threat to what I do. However, I no longer hold in contempt the technologies that help us communicate in ways unimaginable before, and I no longer necessarily see once-trusted sources of information as trustworthy anymore.

I do feel there is a lot that many publications are doing wrong in how they use this new media, such as the fact that publications have let new media and corporate media conglomeration define their publications (even their business models) instead of experienced journalists and editors defining the best way to work new media into an existing structure that was set up to achieve journalistic integrity, and at the same time remain profitable. (And I could go on forever about this, too, but I won’t.) But all in all, social media and the blogosphere are useful things to me and a great many others. After all, through them I found Quiche Moraine and ScienceBlogs, and that’s a good thing.

Like you, I imagine that bloggers and other online publications will move toward more critique of the information they publish, but I don’t think that will be for a while. But I know from experience and observation that many publications trying to break into the online world from print, and even publications that have always been online, just do not value copy editors, in particular. We’re seen as bottlenecks. It’s difficult going to work each day knowing this, and knowing my days, and the days of what I do professionally, are numbered.

When the pink slip comes my way, and it certainly will, I’ll be OK. I plan to change careers. But not all my fellow copy editors are so inclined or interested. We do important work. We don’t just sit around with red pens and look down our noses at others’ writing. We contribute a lot toward making someone’s writing clearer, more consistent, more accessible, honest (we catch errors of fact often), and, dare I say it, more successfully received. We do it all, and we never, ever get the byline. No matter what writers may think, copy editors do appreciate them and their ability to just get the words out.

http://network.nature.com/people/henrygee/blog/2009/05/01/what-i-think-about-when-i-think-about-manuscripts

Don’t miss the comments. As usual, once an editor says they’re willing to talk about process, lots of good questions get asked and answered.

At ScienceBlogs, and I imagine many other websites with similar structure, we editors are in the unique position of simultaneously having to manage our contributors, even though we exert remarkably little actual editorial control past the point of recruitment. Assisting them with technology, keeping them aware of things that affect the network and their blogs, responding to all kinds of special questions, requests, concerns, etc. Balancing the demands of our bloggers, readers, and business is one of the most challenging things, I think, of the job, and not something that can be done (well) without individual and focused consideration.

Great post- lots of food for thought!

It was a painful realization that I was making too many assumptions for the audience, that they would have a certain level of knowledge. I think she used two red pens, because the first ran out of ink.