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.
Do technical writers have an ethical duty to validate their assumptions
about the context and rules of an instruction before asserting their
assumptions as rules in a document? Or is it ethical to make the
assumptions and then require an SME to validate accuracy?
I think the answer is always, "It depends," because we often must adapt to
the habits of our SMEs.
In addition, occasionally we work for long enough within a company or
domain that we become experts in some areas.
-Elisa
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Lauren <lauren -at- writeco -dot- net> wrote:
> On 4/26/2017 9:38 PM, Dave C wrote:
>
>> Itâs very fun and entertaining to guess at the original authorâs meaning,
>> but isnât time to ask the client, a SME, to clarify?
>>
>> Weâve come up with several *possible* answers, but only one is correct.
>>
>
> We do not know if âoneâ is correct, the answers could all be wrong. This
> thread raises questions for me about technical writers.
>
> Do technical writers have an ethical duty to validate their assumptions
> about the context and rules of an instruction before asserting their
> assumptions as rules in a document? Or is it ethical to make the
> assumptions and then require an SME to validate accuracy?
>
> My point in my first post in this thread was when I pointed out that the
> phrase had multiple meanings and that context was necessary to determine
> what the scientist was trying to say. I donât know why people continued to
> argue math (with errors) when context of the phrase was vague. The original
> question was about correct usage of âbyâ or âtimesâ in a phrase that called
> for multiplication. The discussion of grammar could not begin until the
> science was clear, and it was not. We could only speculate meaning but that
> is enough for the purposes of discussion.
>
> What is enlightening is that there are many technical writers here who do
> not know the significance of basic math theory. In this discussion, there
> were many misstatements of math rules concerning the significance of the
> usage of âbyâ and âtimesâ; these words do not mean the same thing. I hope
> that the OP defers the language used for math to the SMEs.
>
> One thing I have learned in this thread is why teaching math arrays today
> is so important. When people think that 2 x 3 = 6 means the same thing at 3
> x 2 = 6 because the result is the same, we have a problem. While the
> similarity works in simple math theory, it does not work in advanced math
> theory and it does not work in grammar, as it gives the same meaning to
> each, the multiplicand and the multiplier, calling each an âoperand.â This
> is wrong in basic math and basic grammar.
>
> Multiplicand and multiplier are operands but that is not the final
> reduction of their significance. You multiply the multiplicand *by* the
> multiplier to get the product. The product of multiplication is the
> multiplier *times* the multiplicand.
>
> Third grade math arrays show this better.
>
> 1 1 \
> 1 1 This array means 3 by 2, or 2 times 3.
> 1 1 /
>
> 1 1 1 \
> 1 1 1 / This array means 2 by 3, or 3 times 2.
>
> Both arrays equal 6 but they get there different ways. In simple math, 1 =
> 1; in advanced math and in science, 1 may be a container for something
> else, like a complex set of operations. Repeating an operation three times
> on a thing valued at 2 is not the same as repeating the same operation
> twice on a thing valued at 3.
>
> I am amazed at the example this discussion has shown. Writers argued math
> and did it wrong, they also made assumptions about the science behind the
> phrase being discussed that led to wrong conclusions about the process
> being documented. A writer following such bad advice could mislead the
> users of the document.
>
> Here is a good (and simple) example of what I have been saying about
> multiplication and that 2 x 3 and 3 x 2 are *not* the same.
>
>http://www.crewtonramoneshouseofmath.com/multiplicand-and-multiplier.html
>
> I like this statement...
>
> âBut the product, that is, the amount you get after you multiply is the
> same so why bother even talking about it? Why is there debate? Why is one
> more/most correct?
>
> Because numbers describe reality numerically thatâs why.
>
> The order is universally LxWxH.
>
> Carpenters who stray from this find themselves in trouble, and might end
> up making doors for some very corpulent midgets.â
>
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and
> content development | http://techwhirl.com
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as elisawyer -at- gmail -dot- com -dot-
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>
>
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
>http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and
> info.
>
> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online
> magazine at http://techwhirl.com
>
> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public
> email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
>
--
Elisa Rood Sawyer
~~~~~^~~~~~
Technical and Creative Writer
"Apparently there is nothing that cannot happen today." Mark Twain
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com
