Talk:Writer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Literature	(Rated Stub-Class, Mid-importance)	LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Literature portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it.

for monetary or personal gain?

I suppose it depends what how you define "personal gain", but I think this is misleading. You probably don't write a diary or a livejournal for personal gain particularly, but I think it makes you a writer. -- Sam Francis

[edit] Categorization

An article on the profession of "Writer" is not itself a writer, so I have deleted "Category:Writer" et al from this article. BeteNoir 07:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Entry is very unprofessional

I think the "Alternative uses of writer" entry should be removed.

The individual who wrote this article for some reason has taken on a very personal, subjective tone in describing who is or isn't considered a writer - would a copywriter who writes scripts for film be any less of a writer than a writer who also writes scripts for a film for profit? Or a journalist or magazine writer who is also a PR/marketing flack? If so, most professional writers in the United States would not be considered a writer by Wikipedia's current definition, when in fact they are by the standards of the United States government (ad writers, marketers, journalists, and novelists all fall under the category of "Writer")[1], which most likely trumps the case of an individual inserting an entry into Wikipedia.

Wikipedia shows itself as an incredibly unreliable and unprofessional reference source through allowing this subjectivity. ("Then change it, if you don't like it! I agree with you - now, do something about it! That's why it's a COMMUNITY project.")

1. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos089.htm