It is relevant because I wrote the post after trying to read through a tech article filled with the F word, and other obscenities and vulgarities. I stopped reading a third of the way through. The tech writer did himself no favors in using such language.
My point was that such writing in tech articles (any writing for that matter) dramatically reduces the credibility of the writer and adds nothing to the article. But as I wrote in a subsequent reply, “anyway, enough said probably on this topic. My point primarily was that tech writers would do themselves and their readers a service by using better grammar and a better vocabulary. I don’t wish to digress too far into a topic not suited to this forum.”
The goal of the average tech article nowadays is to be clicked on, not read. I wonder if that incentivizes publications to care less about what their writers write.
I admit it is borderline, a line I don’t mean to cross. But MPU is about Tech including blogs and podcasts. In that regard, it is relevant. But as I said before, probably enough said on this topic.
If you’re having your words read by anyone outside of your own company, you should invest in something like Grammarly. Getting constant inline pokes and prods to liven up your prose does wonder for a writer’s final output. It’s OK to not use the suggestions for the sake of individual style, but having something that prevents a writer from committing the most egregious errors would positively impact most of the grammatical errors I see in the tech press today.
I signed up for Grammarly last year, and I don‘t use it all the time¹ but I definitely use it when I’m writing my monthly article for the church newsletter and other important things. I don’t take all of its suggestions, but it does at least help me spot some issues that I might have missed on my own.
¹ I also definitely do not use their Mac app, which is terrible, and I don’t use their browser extension, as I don’t need it mucking with every input field on every web page. I only use it via their website.
Uncategorized
This section of the forum is open for all kinds of discussion, please make sure it stays relevant to the community (e.g. tech/Mac related, and of interest to most visitors here).
This is why the topic is on point for the MPU community.
I believe I understand your point… just as I understand the other people posting here.
Coming from a typesetting/printing background, I truly appreciate it when someone takes the time & effort to write without typo’s. Proper grammar never goes out of style and only encourages readers to return.
I also believe the “counting clicks” and “first to post” mentality has deprived readers of quality articles.
There is nothing relevant to the community about how people feel about the state of writing on the web.
If you‘re going to attempt to widen the definition to be essentially meaningless and say “Well, if someone is interested in it, then it’s relevant” then we might as well start talking about politics, the automobile industry, stamp collecting, meatloaf recipes, or anything else.
One of the reasons I listen to the MPU podcast is because the topics are thoroughly researched.
If a tech writer likes to use innapropiate language, I don’t have a problem with it. What’s even the appropiate word to describe Apple’s butterly keyboard fiasco?
But I have a bigger problem with the lack of research and depth in most articles. Most of them are too superficial.
Thinking about this topic, there are two (or maybe two and a half) cases where foul language is appropriate in writing for the public:
For humorous effect.
When reporting on the speech or writing of people who used that language, and there only when it advances the story.
2-1/2. Writing fiction about characters who speak that way.
Even in those cases, foul language is a strong spice, to be used sparingly (in the example I linked to above, I think they’re overdoing it this season).
I am a journalist. I don’t use that kind of language in my articles. I’m only tempted to quote people using it, once every two or three years, and in those cases I check in with my editors and colleagues before I do. Not that I need permission, but it’s helpful to get a reality-check.
For me personally, I have a raunchy sense of humor and I’m from New York where we use F-bombs like commas. Foul language doesn’t bother me but when I read it in an article, it makes me feel like the writer is trying too hard to look tough.
No one is training anyone (outside of school). Language is constantly evolving according to social negotiated norms. There are plenty of words that were previously acceptable but are now considered offensive or inappropriate. People complaining about vocabulary from one generation or another is just a natural part of never ending generational tensions. Somethings stick, somethings don’t, and somethings evolve. Vernacular is highly contextual, so it doesn’t really make sense to bemoan vernacular that differs from your own. It may not agree with your expectations or norms, but that doesn’t make it invalid. Calling it “sad” just makes a person sound elitist. You don’t even have to look at older versus younger, just go to a neighbourhood with different demographics. I agree grammar is important, but all vocabulary has a place and can be used tastefully–it may just not be to everyone’s taste.
It’s bad enough “old-white-guys” already dominate explicit and implicit decisions about what counts as good and proper. There’s no need to perpetuate this privilege and as a future old-white-guy myself, something I continuously try to be conscious of. So maybe the better approach is to ask if something is genuinely problematic or just different from our own little corner of the world.
We are devotees of technology products produced by a company of which one of the founders famously elocuted that his having attended calligraphy classes was foundational in the development of the aesthetics that he insisted be applied to those products. In so doing, The Jobs gave to us, his disciples, Great License in the breadth of what can be considered to be On Topic when engaging in discourse in The Forums.
Well, I for one would not want to defend this sort of writing “Build What You Want, How the Queen of Shitty Robots renounced her crown and confronted her fears of imperfection (while facing her own mortality and making a f*****g awesome electric pickup truck).“
While the Wired article has merit, the language does nothing to enhance it – to the contrary, it detracts not only from the credibility of the content but of the author himself. We can do better. Striving for excellence in language is neither snobbish nor elitist, it is raising the standard and showing a modicum of concern and respect for a diverse audience.
Those writing with an expectation of being paid for doing so are disadvantaged by not having a copy editor. Vulgarities aside, putting up copy with poor grammar, run-on sentences, etc. will prevent them obtaining some future work. Economically, it’s a sad state of affairs.
My point primarily was that tech writers would do themselves and their readers a service by using better grammar and a better vocabulary. I don’t wish to digress too far into a topic not suited to this forum.”
