Content and Copy Editing for the History Commons
written by Kevin Fenton (KJF), Matt Everett, and Michael Tuck (blackmax)
This is a brief and informal introduction to content and copy editing for the History Commons. The main article covering writing material for the Commons can be found here: History Commons "Entries for Dummies." You're reading a supplemental article. Haven't read the other article? Go read it and come back to this one.
The History Commons Contribution and Style Manual can be found here. This is a key reference; keep this handy.
Multiple editors
the three-person minimum
The History Commons uses a multiple-editor scheme for approving entries for publication. Basically, that means that three people, at a minimum, read and approve the entry: the author, the content editor, and the copy editor. (It does happen that the author also copy-edits a particular entry, but that has more to do with a dearth of manpower than anything else. We want as many eyes on the material as possible before publishing it.)
Content Editing and Copy Editing
is there a real difference?
There is, but we don't make a real distinction between the two editors. If you're content editing, you're copy editing, too. Basically, the first person to edit is editing for content, and the second is editing copy, but both editors basically look for the same kinds of problems and correct them, or send them back. An editor never lets an error go under the assumption that the "other guy" will catch it.
Copy Editing
much easier than the other
Copy editing is easy. You're looking for misspellings, bad grammar, typos, poor or clumsy writing and phrasing, and all that kind of thing. The real fun comes in content editing.
Content Editing
where the magic happens...
Content editing is where the rubber meets the road. Here's where we catch the errors that, if published, would diminish or completely destroy the credibility of the History Commons. There are a number of things we don't allow through:
- Completely unbelievable or implausible entries. This covers wacky conspiracy theories, suppositions, unsupported allegations, and the like. Return them (using the evil "Reject" button) to the person who input them with a comment saying why you returned them.
- Entry is not an event — all entries in the commons database are supposed to reflect a specific event (action, activity), like a speech, travel, meeting, publication of article, etc. They are not observations, although there are ways to get around this rule (like having an entry about a media figure making an observation). Return and comment these.
- Entry already exists in database — if there is already an entry in the database for a given event, a new one should be returned to the inputter, saying he should just update the current event with any new material. One quick way to check if an entry is already in the database is to preview the draft entry, then right click on one of the entities that is a participant, and scroll down to where the event should be.
- Writer assumes too much background knowledge. All participants in an event should be named in full at the top, then referred to by surname. Their position should also be given. All organizations (except really obvious ones like the CIA) should be named in full with the abbreviation after them, then referred to by the abbreviation. Writers also sometimes leave out material they think is obvious, but is not to the lay reader. Keep an eye out of this. Usually this kind of error can be fixed and the entry moved on through.
- Writers include long quotes. While sometimes long blocks of quoted text are necessary, more often they are not, and can be summarized with no loss of data or context. This is a judgment call for you to either fix and move through, or return and comment.
- Abnormally long entries (500 words plus) that reference multiple events can usually be broken into multiple entries, with each entry covering a single event. Return these and comment them with your recommendations as to where the breaks should take place.
- Entry references unsuitable sources. Generally we prefer mainstream media sources, though this restriction is loosening with the advent of "citizen journalism" and blogs by prominent lawmakers, scientists, authors, etc. Anonymous blogs on obscure servers are generally not acceptable except in very specific and unusual circumstances.
- As the entries come to you, they are anonymous. However, you will get a feel for who writes what and will learn who to trust more and who to check up on more, and you will get used to dealing with the individual writer. Black Max (Michael) is probably the most thin-skinned of the general run of veteran writers (since I'm writing this portion, I can definitely make this assessment! — Max), and will sometimes get argumentative. Argue back! Generally, everyone, even Max, is very amenable to editing and discussion of entries. You'll run into sporadic contributions from irrregular participants that can be wildly out of whack. If you come across something that looks bizarre, return it and comment it. Either the author can fix it, or someone else can puzzle over it.
- You don't have to check all the facts in every single entry, as the entries mostly concern stuff you know anyway about current affairs. However, if you are unsure about the factual basis of an entry, it is best to preview it and click on the supporting links, just to be sure. And it is also good to do random checks to ensure that no one is plagiarizing published works.
- You are not expected to zero the counters for entries and keep them that way. Any effort you can put in will be welcomed.
- If something isn't working for you or you are not sure, ask early. Please don't spend three hours trying to figure out what "Snippet-level pictures no longer supported" means, for one inexplicable example. Ask one of us, and we will tell you if we know. This will save you time.
- In content edit you are supposed to "score" the entries. The scores are seemingly meaningless at the moment, so you can give whatever marks you want. Kevin always gives a four, going to five if he is particularly impressed. (He writes: "I think I gave a 2 once to something that was really weird I sent back.") Max always gives fives unless something is truly out of whack. No one pays a lot of attention to them, so just put something in and move on to something more important.
Note on comments: While they are technically anonymous, it's good to sign your comments. The author can contact the editor directly to discuss the comments and the actions taken. It's also a way to keep things friendly and involved, instead of anonymous actions taken without anyone owning up.
Two notes on formatting from Matt: "Incidentally, one thing I often do when I want to check how something should be formatted in an entry is see what the New York Times does, as the Times seems to have high standards in this regard. As a recent example, I wanted to check whether 'congressional investigators' should begin with a capital 'c'. So I did the following search on Google: "congressional investigators" nytimes.com From this I found that the Times did indeed begin it with a capital 'c', so I changed it in an entry to 'Congressional investigators.'" He also notes that the general rule is: "All participants in an entry should be named in full when you first refer to them in that entry. If you refer to that person again in the entry, use just their surname. [T]here is one exception I make to our rule ... [t]his is when I am referring to a recent US president, e.g. 'President Clinton,' 'President Bush,' 'President Reagan,' 'President Obama.' Because these recent US presidents are so well known in probably every nation of the world, I don't think readers will need their first name. In my opinion, it can also sometimes sound slightly odd if you include their first name, like 'President Barack Obama,' 'President Bill Clinton,' etc. Also, occasionally if I refer to a particular person near the start of a very long entry, and then a second time only near the end of that long entry, I might use that person's full name on that second occasion, rather than just their surname, simply because of the long gap between mentions of their name."
The 9/11 Timeline
a bit of a special case
Matt notes: "I think it is best to leave editing of entries for the Complete 9/11 Timeline mostly to Kevin and myself. We sometimes get entries or entry-amendments submitted that are a bit careless or can be a little inaccurate. (In particular, it is easy for contributors to get muddled up in "Day of 9/11" entries, as these often deal with complex and interweaving events that occurred within a short space of time.) The exception of course is entries in the 9/11 Timeline written by Kevin or myself, which will require at least one other editor to check over them." Good point.
Conclusion
sometimes you're the bug, sometimes the windshield
Often, editing is really easy. You open an entry, you find it to be small, focused, organized, and nicely written, and you approve it within 30 seconds. However, sometimes it can take ages to knock an entry into shape (there are various aspects to a longer entry and you can't figure out why they are in the order they are in, or the same aspect appears twice but in slightly different form). The system can be moody, so if you spend a long time on an entry, then it is usually best to cut/paste it into a text editor before submitting it. If the system eats it, you don't lose your work and can re-open the entry and re-paste it.
Question about the design of this page
totally off-topic
Why did Max/Michael use this Web page design, that's so different from the History Commons and Entries for Dummies designs? Basically, the answer is that he went looking for an attractive and easy-to-use free template that he could use to present this information without a lot of muss and fuss, and because he likes to be different and ornery. Please note the design credits in the footer.
I have written for the reader who was no longer interested in the daily or even weekly ration of news; this reader wanted to understand it in some organized form and some historical perspective. No doubt the organization and perspective would change as time went on and more information or insight became available. Life cannot wait, however, for historians to gather enough evidence to satisfy them or to make up their minds once they get it. Even a preliminary organization and perspective represent an advance, however provisional. We must make do with what we have while it is still possible to do something about the matter.