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.
> Although I know some people would differentiate between scientific and
> technical writing, I think the distinction is artificial. As a tech writer,
> I describe concepts and uses, for example, as well as processes for a
> specific technology. I also write technical articles in various fields, so
> my definition of "tech writer" tends to be more inclusive than exclusive.
> Technology is "applied science." But I recognize that this is just my
> opinion. As always, YMMV.
I agree wholeheartedly with the above sentiment. In fact, I'll go it one
better. I think any competent writer can be a technical writer. Some will
have to learn a lot more technical stuff than others, but in my opinion
(humility will have to be judged by others) a competent writer does not need
to know much of anything. A competent writer learns what is needed to
communicate to an audience.
Believe me when I say that I have talked to more than a few writers about
this belief and few agree with me. (Sometimes I love being right in the
By the way, my short definition of a Technical Writer is "A writer who gets
paid actual money."