TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Non-technical, Technical Writers From:Karen Kay <karen -at- WORDWRITE -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 6 May 1998 13:12:07 -0700
Andrew Plato said:
> The question was: when faced with someone who has misrepresented themselves
> as a technical person, what do you do?
This is one question.
> How do you handle a person who clearly cannot deal with the
> technology yet are supposed to write about that technology?
This is another.
> Do you help them? Fire them? Stick them in an editors
This depends on how you answer the first two questions. Not being able
to deal with a technology is different from misrepresenting yourself.
> What is the answer to solving the problem of non-technical,
> technical writers?
This is the question that people have been discussing, that you don't
want them to.
> There have been countless discussions on this group about the "definition of
> a technical writer". In my opinion, the definition of a technical writer is
> wholly summarized in the job title "technical writer": a person who is
> technical and writes documents. Period, end of discussion. Add all the
> bulls--t you want to your skill set, if your not technical or you don't
> write, you're not a technical writer.
Define technical. Technical knowledge or technical ability? If you
limit it to technical knowledge, what kind of technical knowledge?
> Sorry, but this group has a nasty tendency to use any hot issue to blather
> about their personal pet peeves, completely ignoring the topic of the
People are not ignoring the topic of the discussion; you framed it poorly.