Talk:Technical Writing in the Digital Age

Layout and Lead

Just to get this thing going, I have created the article, developed a rudimentary layout, and added a lead written by ChatGTP. All of this may be kept or changed. I would certainly revise or rewrite the lead. Questions, ideas, discussion, and comments about the project should be posted here. I'm looking forward to seeing what you all come up with this semester. —Admin (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2023 (EDT)

Citation question

I am citing a later edition of a source that is cited elsewhere on the page. (Markel, Mike, and Selber, Stuart. (2021). Technical Communication (13th ed). This version has a second author. Should these entries be combined somehow?

@Beth Kennedy: Yes. If you’re using the updated version, update the earlier source. Great question, but don’t forget to sign your talk posts. —Admin (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2023 (EDT)

@Admin:Thank you. I have linked the first citation in the article (paragraph 1) to my Markel use under "Rhetorical Strategies." @Mroma98: and @RDrummond:, in looking at the article history, it seems one of you may have added the Markel references under Ethical Considerations. I did not update those references yet because the oldest copyright date on my source is 2012, and I was also unsure of the page numbers. If you review the citation I added, and it is appropriate to reference, the shortened reference is <ref name="Markel">. Thanks. --Beth Kennedy (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2023 (EST)

Shortened Footnotes

I added the template to the project. All you need to do is add the code for your reference under Bibliography and then the SFN code under citations. I made a quick, visual step-by-step that show you how to pull the template and paste the code.--Debbiebwolfe (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2023 (EST)

Nice work! Thanks Cggreen (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2023 (EST)

I just wanted to let everyone know that I worked on cleaning up the citations and making them all look like shortened footnotes per Dr. Lucas's direction. If there was a citation that looked like it belonged in the bibliography, I added it there. Each one of the citations links to the bibliography.--Natecole54 (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2023

@Natecole54: Nice work! I was slowly working my way through the citations to convert them to SNF format, and I am glad to see that they are all done.--Debbiebwolfe (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2023 (EST)

@Natecole54:@Debbiewolfe:Thanks to both of you for taking this on! --Beth Kennedy (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2023 (EST)

@Debbiewolfe:@Beth Kennedy:You're welcome. I will monitor this section and make sure any new additions get formatted correctly.

References question

Should References be the heading, followed by Bibliography as a subheading? Would this only apply if we are using Notes, Citations, and a Bibliography?--CEToledo (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2023 (EDT)

@CEToledo: You can do whatever seems logical for this. Check out The Man Who Studied Yoga to see a way to approach a references section. —Admin (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2023 (EST)

--Debbiebwolfe (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2023 (EST)== Shortened footnote code == I am having trouble understanding where the placement of the works cited and the shortened footnote code should be. I sent an inquiry email to Dr. Lucas. Debbiebwolfe (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2023 (EST)

@Debbiebwolfe: I would put references at the bottom, in a bibliography section. Then you can use the shortened footnotes in the body. This is an easier approach for everyone editing, as they can easily consult the bibliography to see if a reference has been used and entered. —07:30, 6 November 2023 (EST)

@Debbiebwolfe: and @CEToledo: It seems we have two forms of citation happening now: the original one and the revised format that Debbie created. (Thanks Debbie and thanks for the tutorial (above), very helpful!). I think the bibliography with citations using shortened footnotes is a good approach, and my vote would be to transition to this. But it would be good to have consensus. Is everyone ok with this approach? --Beth Kennedy (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2023 (EST)

@Beth Kennedy: I vote SFN form. --Debbiebwolfe (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2023 (EST)

@Beth Kennedy: My vote is for the bibliography with citations using shortened footnotes. I think that will present a clean and readable format, since we are referencing similar marterial. --Kamyers (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2023 (EST)

Do I need to have the citation section? I see that my shortened footnotes are displaying in the reference section.--Debbiebwolfe (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2023 (EST)

For the User Experience section, I reference citation 23. Do I need to add the citation to each entry there since they all come from the same source or will one citation work?--Elaine Streeter (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2023 (EST)

I'm struggling with my references and citations. It currently displays an error message. I updated the section "user guides" and tried to enter in my template and this is the error message I received. What am I doing wrong? --User:APitts

Paragraph Blocks

I can't believe how well and quickly this is coming along. At any rate, on to my dispute...are we adhering to any particular standard in terms of the size of paragraph blocks? Too long and it reduces the likelihood of it being read, too brief (a single sentence) and the topic/subtopic of the contribution seems too unnecessary to even mention. -- User:CBrown

I separated the Digital Document and User Experience sections. I think paragraph blocks should have around three to four sentences max. More than that, we can create a new subheading.--Debbiebwolfe (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2023 (EST)

The Ethical Considerations section seems to run together. Can it be separated into smaller sections with the primary categories as headings: "Employer," "Public," and "Environment?" --User:APitts

@APitts I agree that it would work better to separate into smaller sections. It would make them appear neater and more organized. -- User: HRoney

Can we agree then that there are no more additions to the "Ethical Considerations" section? Cggreen (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2023 (EST)

Edits have been made to separate the Ethical Considerations portion into categories. Can someone look over my work or make any edits as you see fit? -- User: APitts

@APitts: I looked over your work and it looks good to me! There were a couple of grammatical errors that I edited. -- User: HRoney

@CBrown: I agree that a single sentence is too brief for a topic/subtopic but I don't think that means all sections like that are "too unnecessary to even mention". I think that for single sentences we need to review that area to determine if we need to add further details. --User:TBara(talk) 13:53, 14 November 2023 (EST)

@TBara: I am fairly certain that is the way the word "seem" works. -- User:CBrown

Added indents to keep the section readable, per wikipedia indentation philosophy. Cggreen (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2023 (EST)

Topics vs. Subtopics

Why are future trends and challenges separate subtopics under the future trends and challenges topic? Should there not be an overview of future trends and challenges followed by subtopics of examples of future trends and challenges, e.g. artificial intelligence. -- User:CBrown

I am in favor of this idea/change if others agree. --Elaine Streeter (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (EST)

@CBrown: The problem here is that the heading Future Trends and Challenges has room for interpretation. I think the section should just be titled Future Trends. I also think an overview of future trends could be appropriate provided information from its subheadings is not unnecessarily repeated. The material under the Challenges subheading could be relocated to another heading but I would like to hear other opinions on this proposal. —AWilliamson (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2023 (EST)

@AWilliamson: While Challenges could be a standalone heading, are we talking current or future challenges? If current, then I believe it would be best as a standalone heading. If future, then it would fit in the current format. If both, then standalone. --Mike Romano (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2023 (EST)

@Mroma98: I agree with all of your points. My interpretation of the information contained within the Challenges subheading is that it refers to current challenges. I would prefer to either get input from the individual who originally contributed the content or to obtain consensus from other editors before modifying. —AWilliamson (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2023 (EST)

@AWilliamson: OK. We're on the same page. I agree with both of your preferences. --Mike Romano (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2023 (EST)

@AWilliamson: I agree that "Future Trends" and "Challenges" could be separated into two different subtopics. After reviewing the edit history, I believe Dr. Lucas is the one who created this heading, and he has indicated that any of the initial outline can be changed or removed. To me, it seems like almost everything currently in this section falls under the "Challenges" category, so that could be its own section. Then the "Future Trends" can be further developed. --Emma D. (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2023 (EST)

Under Ethical Considerations, I removed the second person pronouns with a more neutral one. Though the paragraph fits with the topic, writing in the second person is not standard practice for Wikipedia/Litwiki. Litwiki is the intellectual property of Dr. Gerald R. Lucas, PhD, and the rules and format of Wikipedia apply to Litwiki. --Mike Romano (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2023 (EST)

Include external links section?

There are a few external (non-wikipedia) links in the article. Should we remove/replace the external links or create an External Links section? According to Wikipedia:External links: "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." —AWilliamson (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2023 (EST)

@AWilliamson: I think we should as this follows the Wikipedia guidelines as well as Dr. Lucas' earlier advice. --Apjones428 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2023 (EST)

@AWilliamson and Apjones428: I agree that external links should be placed in an External links section. However, I question if the ones currently linked are needed external links. Most of the links are to Wikipedia pages. Instead, do these need to be potential LitWiki pages and the links formatted similarly to how one would link a page internally in Wikipedia, even if those pages do not exist? If so, I think the other three external links, PowerPoint, Google Slides, and Business Insider, should follow the same format. Or should any of the current external links inside the body of the article be links at all? My understanding of External links is that they should be reserved for further topic information. -- (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2023 (EST)

@Kamyers: I don't believe the links are needed for the most part. The links do not lead to much more information. --(talk) Kynndra Watson 19:14, 14 November 2023 (EST)

@Kamyers: My thinking was that we treat LitWiki as if it is Wikipedia. So the links to Wikipedia would be considered internal if this is the case. I think what information constitutes "further topic information" is up to us as the editors and we just need to come to a consensus on the matter and then edit accordingly. —AWilliamson (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2023 (EST)

Heading Structure

There are inconsistencies with the subheading structure on the page. I propose we establish the heading structure as follows: Heading 1 (for section titles), Subheading 1 (H2 for subsections within the main section), and Subheading 2 (H3 for items that need to be defined). No italics in subheadings.--Debbiebwolfe (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2023 (EST)

Debbie, I agree. Your suggestion makes sense, as there should be consistency throughout. --Mike Romano (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2023 (EST)

@Debbiebwolfe: I support your proposal. — AWilliamson (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2023 (EST)

I edited the headings and subheadings. Thanks for your input everyone--Debbiebwolfe (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2023 (EST)

@Debbiebwolfe: Thanks for doing this. As I was looking at some of the headings, it seems the H2 headings blend in with the text due to size similarity of the paragraphs below. I think these headings would benefit from being bold to help them stand out more. --Natecole54 (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (EST)

I went ahead and changed these H2 headings to bold for viewability purposes. --Natecole54 (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2023 (EST)

@Natecole54: Bolding headings does nothing and should be avoided. See MOS:BOLD. Thanks. —Admin (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2023 (EST)

Collaboration and Version Control

I think this section can be added to the digital documentation section.--Debbiebwolfe (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2023 (EST)

I moved version control to the digital documentation section. It was already listed there as a characteristic. I left collaboration as its own section. I'm not positive it falls under the characteristics of a digital document. I think it may be fine to leave that one on its own, but also down to do whatever the group thinks is best for it. Bryanna.kerbuski (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2023 (EST)

I moved the collaboration under the section for digital documentation, and I renamed the subheading "Remote Collaboration" because that is a characteristic of digital documents, but now that I've done it, I wonder if I should have just left it alone. Perhaps, I just need to edit the content under the heading. Kleinberger (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2023 (EST)

Features of Technical Communication Section

When compared to the other sections of the talk page, this section seems a bit choppy. I'm thinking we can get a better intro paragraph and maybe either add longer paragraphs for each item, or combine some of the subheadings together. Any thoughts on this? --Amanda Austin (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2023 (EST)

I do think that longer paragraphs will make the section more thorough. Maybe sections like "clear" and "concise" could be combined? User: HRoney

@HRoney: Thank you for your feedback, I've gone ahead and combined those two sections along with adding more context to the remainder of each subheadings in the section. To all, please feel free to review and let me know of any questions or revision changes you'd think would work. Amanda.Austin1 (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2023 (EST)

Additional Sections

What additional sections would we like to add to this article? I will be adding in more on multi-modality as well as more information to the SEO section of the page. Other thoughts? --Apjones428 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2023 (EST)

I think adding in more on both multi-modality and SEO would be helpful. SEO is one that I am struggling with understanding. I think that it'd be nice to have more information about it on our wiki.Bryanna.kerbuski (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2023 (EST)

I agree we should add more info detailing SEO, but should we also go into more detail about the user centered design principles? We have mentioned it in a few spots but nothing really going into detail about its importance, especially in relation to SEO. I can organize my research and knock it out.User:Kynndra.watson 18:59, 14 November 2023 (EST)

I added the SEO section because of its importance to the user experience. Optimizing keywords and long-tail keywords should be right in a digital writer's wheelhouse. Feel free to add to this section! Cggreen (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2023 (EST)

Links to other Wikipedia articles

In the Wikipedia: Citing Sources guidelines, under the Wikidata section, it states, "Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source (just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources). Bold font is mine. Five of the eight title, name, or word links go to another Wikipedia article. One of those articles states it doesn't exist. We should consider correcting these. Randy M. Drummond (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2023 (EST)

@RDrummond: I think you are referring to Wikipedia:Citing sources but possibly discussing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Can you offer any clarification? —AWilliamson (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2023 (EST)

@AWilliamson: I couldn’t find it specifically in the Style/Linking section, it even talks about linking to sister articles, but the Citing Sources has what I quoted. The article I used in Wiki Assignment 4, Wiki NPOV, the writer cited numerous statements and studies but linked them to Wiki pages about the government agency or corporation that said nothing about what he was putting in his article. That made me start to check links to other Wiki articles. Randy M. Drummond (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2023 (EST)

Article Organization

I've been taking a look at the overall structure of the article, and I wonder if we might consider revising the organization. It just seems like there's a bit too much back and forth between Technical Writing topics and Digital Writing topics. Also, I wonder if the Historical Context should come before the Features section. Something about the overall structure just feels "off" to me. Kleinberger (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2023 (EST)

@Kleinberger:I think the organization could be fine-tuned so it flows naturally. I agree the Historical Context should come before the features section. If we were to mimic the Technical Writing Wiki page, it has the overview and then history. Since there are technical writing topics and digital writing topics, we could add more context in the digital technologies and technical writing section that could merge these two concepts together to transition into topics on digital writing. The article should transition from what Technical Writing was to what it is now in the Digital Age. Jasteverson (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2023 (EST)

Making it Flow

I agree with several of the other posts about overall organization and the flow of the article. I feel the article itself is good and has a lot of great content, I am just not sure about how it is currently laid out. For example, the intro is an "Overview of Technical Communication." In that section are types, aims and characteristics of technical communication. However, the next section is "Features of Technical Communication." All of these are related and should be included in one section if they all focus on various aspects of technical communication. There also seems to be a random order of the headings. The last heading on future trends is good, but right above that is pedagogical approaches. I think that should be earlier in the article. Also, there is a heading for examples of digital documents under a heading on digital documents which includes lots of subheadings. Again, I think content is great. I just think we could clean it up a bit.

Expansion Needed

While reviewing the article, there are specific sections without enough detail that need to be expanded. These three sections are Overview-Types of Technical Communication, Ethical Considerations-The Public, and Future Trends and Challenges-Future Trends. Also is it okay to have a single subsection under Appropriateness? Do we need or have planned to have additional subsections or should we eliminate the subheading "Audience-specific"?--User:TBara(talk) 14:14, 14 November 2023 (EST)

Technical Documents

I broke out the Technical Documents subsection and made it its own category. The Wikipedia article on [writing] lists out the types of technical documents. I think it's a great way to expand on the piece. Feel free to add definitions or more subcategories. --Debbiebwolfe (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2023 (EST)

@Debbiebwolfe:Thank you for adding this list. I'm working on the definitions too. I also added an entry for Documentation and moved "Instructions and Procedures" under it so all forms of documentation are under one entry. I think this makes sense, but see what you think. --Beth Kennedy (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2023 (EST)

@Beth Kennedy: I think it makes perfect sense! I just threw categories in to get it started and have already changed them around as I research. I am thinking of adding a separate "tools" section to mimic what is on the Wikipedia entry. Thoughts?

@Debbiebwolfe:I think adding "tools" is a good idea, but I wonder if it would be good to have them under the current "Digital Technologies and Technical Writing" section? The list would help to expand this section and would reinforce the digital connection. Just a thought.--Beth Kennedy (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2023 (EST)