Bite-Size Edits is a game where players get points for editing. Discover new writers and engage with great authors, while improving the world’s sentences. –Bite-size Edits
Bite-size Edits, Hugh McGuire‘s recent start-up, provides snippets of texts–some uploaded by their authors or publishers, others from the public domain–to users for them to suggest changes to, i.e. edit. That’s Bite-size Edits in a nutshell. I get that much. What I’ve had trouble understanding is the purpose of Bite-size Edits. In following the site’s development, I’ve noticed Bite-size Edits has two emergent identities: a game (impractical) and a source of editing (practical). These two indistinct identities are symptoms of Bite-size Edits’ ambiguous purpose.
I’m an editor (This is one of those times when self-disclosure seems appropriate), and being an editor, I have strong opinions about things like language, grammar, usage, good writing. I also have an opinion about the place of the editor’s craft in publishing, both book and periodical. Before I pass any further judgment about Bite-size Edits, I should make clear that I’ve spent some time on the site and am familiar with the Bite-size Edits process, so that I don’t feel my opinion is unfounded. And it’s not my intent to unduly criticize Bite-size Edits, but to provide feedback. (Hugh, you understand, right?) In fact, my interest is in helping clarify Bite-size Edits’ purpose; to sweep away some of that ambiguity.
Is it a game or a utility?
One of Bite-size Edits’ early goals was to provide a source of proofreading for Project Gutenburg texts. I think this is a great application for the site. Soon, the crowd sourcing of proofreading expanded to include editing in general–and not just for public domain texts such as those hosted at Project Gutenburg. After Bite-size Edits was launched as its own site, separate from Book Oven (another of Hugh’s projects), there was talk of the site being “addictive, soothing, and fun.” Somehow Bite-size Edits had become a game–complete with points and prizes. Games aren’t usually practical; but that initial purpose of providing a source for proofreading continues to influence how Bite-size Edits is seen.
Earlier I mentioned how Bite-size Edits suffers from an ambiguous purpose, caused by a split-identity. You can see the ambiguity in people’s conversations about the site. Erin Balser, over at Book Madame & Associates, says,
Bite-Size Edits democratizes and crowd-sources editing like never before. The possibilities for this new program are endless. Readers can become active participants in the creation of a book, editors can hone their skills, writers can draw on a super-talented and devoted community of editors. Can you imagine this in a classroom? A writing group? A communications department? Hell, Hugh and co. turned Bite-Size Edits into a game. And games are awesome.
I don’t want to read into Erin’s post too much, but it seems the comment Bite-size Edits was turned into a game was more an afterthought. The main point conveyed is the site “democratizes and crowd-sources editing.”
In their review, *openmargin dialogue said,
Bite-Size Edits was first built to allow authors to crowdsource the editing process by utilizing their social network…Of course editing contextless pieces of texts becomes a less enjoyable experience once the ‘newness’ wears off, so that’s why recently a gaming element was added.
Hoping for some clarification “from the horse’s mouth,” I went to the Bite-size edits FAQ, and found Hugh and his team had anticipated some vitriol. Choice FAQ (are these really frequently asked?) included:
You are barbarians! How can you [do] something so egregious to the precious written word?
Actually, we are doing this because we love words, we love writing, and we want to find new ways to connect people with text, to connect readers and writers. Bite-Size Edits is really a celebration of the craft of writing, and the pleasure of reading. It’s an acknowledgement of the hard work writers and editors must do to make those basic building blocks of writing — sentences — as sharp and polished as they can be. Of course, there is room for raggedness in writing too; and not every text will be improved in Bite-Size Edits. But this is a new way to connect people who love words, and that, surely, is worth a little bit of barbarism.
Or:
An editor and a writer have a sacred relationship. Have you no shame?
There is no way that Bite-Size Edits could ever replace a writer-editor relationship. It is our hope, actually, that it might create those relationships, by helping writers and editors find each other. But Bite-Size Edits is not something that should be used instead of a “real” editor, if a “real” editor is available. It can be used in addition to a real editor, in parallel with a real editor, or even in series. Still, if you don’t have access to an editor, Bite-Size Edits might be the next best thing.
Some problems with Bite-size Edits…
I might as well explain my own problems with the site as a source of editing. The first is the seeming confusion of the writer’s and editor’s craft. Writers express in the written word; editors help writers’ expression to be understood. And to do that, editors develop a list of editorial skills: proofreading, copy editing, substantive editing, developmental editing, production editing. Bite-size Edits works well for proofreading, or mechanical editing–correcting typos, spelling, grammar, and usage errors. It doesn’t work so well for stylistic editing–the recasting of sentences to ensure clarity and consistency. The contextless snippets of Bite-size Edits makes it difficult for editors to create (or maintain) clarity and consistency. A recurring problem I found with the site was finding ambiguous (or at least they appeared so) pronouns and not having enough text to find their antecedent. As an editor, this drove me up the wall. Another problem I foresee is the cliche “too many cooks spoil the broth.” Without an editorial style guide, multiple editors can make contradictory suggestions for changes, leaving the author to sort out the contradictions, trying to create or maintain consistency throughout their text.
…and some benefits
One of Bite-size Edits benefits is its accessibility; what Erin called the democratization of editing. But the source of the editing is specific: good readers. A key point in writing is having your writing read. A good reader can make valuable suggestions for changes. Good readers also make good proofers, able to correct typos, spelling, grammar, and usage–mechanical editing. But readers can’t replace the work of editors; the Bite-size Edits FAQs says as much.
My take on Bite-size Edits? It’s a fun game, but not a source of quality stylistic editing. The newspaper industry continues to confuse the writer’s and editor’s craft, cutting their copy desk staff and having reporters edit their own stories. Consequently, we see more printed errors in newspapers. Not because reporters make lousy editors, but because they aren’t trained in the editor’s craft (and they have their own deadlines to manage). I’d hate to see book publishers make a similar mistake. I don’t think Bite-size Edits is necessarily the first slide down a slippery slope, to the eventual end of copy editing as we know it. I do, however, feel writers and readers should better understand what an editor can do. As for Bite-size Edits: I’ll still play the game, but I’d be surprised if the conversation about the sites practical applications doesn’t continue. People ingeniously bend new technologies to their will, so I wont deny seeing some potential in Bite-size Edits for improving our writing. The least it does now is connect writers with readers; such an important step in the writing process.
What I’m trying to say, in a characteristically circumvent way, is that Bite-size Edits needs to clarify its purpose: is it an impractical game, or a practical utility. If it’s meant to be a utility, the type and character of the editing it provides needs to be clearer and more transparent. The site, in my opinion, is a good source of readers, but not editors (even though there are great editors on the site).
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
Firstly, you are absolutely right that Bite-Size Edits suffers from some ambiguity: is it a proofreading tool, or is it a game? And if it is both, what does that mean exactly? The answer is: we shall find out.
But I take issue with your statement that a game must be impractical. Why can’t a game also be practical? In fact I think one of the most interesting areas of the web in the next few years will be harnessing human’s love of fun/games for useful purposes. For a beautiful essay on this topic, as it relates to Wikipeida, see Nicholson Baker’s “The Charms of Wikipedia:”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131
The gamishness of Bite-Size Edits did not come as an afterthought (that was always part of the idea: that it was fun), though certainly when we split Bite-Size from Book Oven we emphasized that aspect more. Why? Because when we looked at how people were using it in Book Oven, it became clear that gamish behaviours were already there: a certain addictiveness, and rich social connections between writers & editors, even though the texts were random. This was, I think, the most surprising part … that with these decontextualized sentences reader/editors become engaged with and attached to a text – if they like the writing. That was a kind of surprise.
So: we wanted to enhance those aspects of gamishness and fun, in order to drive more usage and engagement – all of which leads to the useful/practical output (we think) of better sentences.
So yes, Bite-Size Edits is ambiguous, but that’s part of what happens with an odd start-up like this. You have to react to how users start using the thing, and be open to let them take you in new directions.
It’s early days yet, lets see where it goes – hopefully you’ll keep playing around and giving us feedback. All this is supremely useful.
Finally, I think that you have not put any texts through the Bite-Size process? Am I right about that? If so, perhaps it is time to try it, and see what actually happens to your text. It’s hard to make a judgment about the utility of something that you haven’t even used yet!
The writers who have tried it report great surprise at how useful it is, not just for fixing errors, but more importantly, for making clear sentences that say what the writer means. So no, it is not good at rich, contextual editing; but it turns out to be very useful for taking a text and making it better. A professional editor might be a more direct route to get there – but I think that’s just the next step.
[Regarding Project Gutenberg texts ... the problem there is that to do a proper job in that context, we need to provide the scanned image of the text, as well as the text-to-be-edited. Otherwise "errors" that in fact are not errors tend to get corrected. We'd like to be able to do this... but that's a whole significant development job.]
Some Bite-Size Love (Some of It Tough) // Apr 5, 2010 at 6:38 pm
[...] ClearMirror.ca proclaims: “Bite-size Edits suffers from an ambiguous purpose, caused by a split-identity.” [...]
Hugh,
I appreciate you taking the time to comment on my post about Bite-size Edits. I found it helpful to understand where the site has come from, and where it might be heading.
Maybe I’ve misread “game” when it’s been used to describe Bite-size Edits. If it simply means the site can be fun and addictive, I totally agree. I find my own editing work fun and addictive. But there’s something purposeful about describing the site as a game. The word “game” conjures up certain anticipations and feelings, which I’m not all to sure how to describe. But for me, “game” connotes “impracticality,” much like “work” connotes “practicality.”
In a way, I was disappointed you used wikipedia (or an essay about it) to illustrate how gameness can be practical. As an academic, I see wikipedia as a source of misinformation. And the nature of wikipedia as a social editing/crowd source site is the cause of the misinformation–or, often, disinformation, as Nicholson points out. But undergrads see wikipedia as a viable source of information. In horrifyingly large numbers, undergrads use the site as a source for studying or researching, unknowingly spreading spurious information.
Wikipedia is presented as a source of crowd sourced, accurate information. That wikipedia in fact does damage to the public’s access to accurate knowledge points to one of my underlying concerns about Bite-size Edits; will social editing provide what it purports, which is better writing. From the feedback Bite-size Edits has been getting, writers appear to find the suggestions they get back about their writing helpful and insightful. Well, who can argue with that. My only caveat remains that editing encompasses a wide range of editorial tasks, and writers and publishers would be remiss to ensure their writings to crowd sourced or social editing because these sources do not provide the full range of editorial skills needed to produce a quality publication.
But I wouldn’t go so far as to say no-one should use Bite-size Edits, and that a professional editor is the only viable source of editorial input. Rather, as I suggested in my post, Bite-size Edits provides a great source of readers, who make both great proofers and commentators. The site also holds other more interesting potentials: such as with Sachiko Murakami’s “The Idea Machine,” which takes the collaborative process to a ridiculous extreme.
I haven’t put up a piece to be edited on Bite-size Edits, and maybe I should, but I don’t see that as lessening the validity of my opinion. My comments are made as an editor, from the working-side of an editor. The editor’s process, as I experienced it, lacked the context of the text I felt necessary to usefully edit (aside from straightforward mechanical editing). That doesn’t mean I mightn’t be surprised by what I get back if I put a piece up on the site. So I’ll have to do just that…
Ryan
Ha, well if that is your opinion of Wikipedia, then we have a fundamentally different metaphysical outlook.
I do find it puzzling though that undergrads think so uncritically about Wikipedia (I’ve heard this from many educators). After all, Wikipedia doesn’t present itself as a source of accurate information, it presents itself as: “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”
I think the problem is that Wikipedia comes from and describes a totally different universe than most educators come from and teach in… that is: *someone* must be teaching kids somewhere along the line: “if you read it in a book, or on the internet, or on wikipedia, it is true.” … when in fact kids should be learning: “if you read it in a book, or on the internet, or on wikipedia, it might be true, and you should verify it with another source before believing it to be true. Don’t trust everything you read.” Clearly, that’s not what they learn. And I suppose you can blame Wikipedia, but it seems to me there is a problem elsewhere. (Which doesn’t change the fact that kids read Wikipedia as the gospel… There is an easy way to solve that, though, surely: a zero on any paper that references Wikipedia without a second back-up source … no?)
Anyway, that’s my beef with our education system tho, and sort of beside the point.
Tools are good for the things they are good at; not so good for things they aren’t good at. So dismissing a hammer because it is not good at screwing screws misses the point. Though if what you really want is to screw a screw, then fair play: a hammer isn’t for you.
Wikipedia is a good first stop for an overview of general information on a topic, to be taken with a grain of salt, and follow-up with other sources. It’s not good as a catalog of Verified Fact.
Bite-Size Edits is a good way (we think) to make your sentences better, clearer, crisper … but it’s not a replacement for an editor, nor does it fix larger contextual or stylistic problems. It’s also, we think, a great way for writers/text to get seen by other writers/editors; and an entertaining & useful (to someone) way to spend 15 minutes of downtime.