Reason Needs Temporary Proofreaders
Make an awesome publication even betterer bettir butter better than it already is!
Help bring Reason magazine's history into the future. Reason is looking for temporary proofreaders to help clean up and finalize articles from Reason's archives that have been imported for display on the web. We are looking for hourly workers who can work remotely or at our D.C. office. Students and individuals with an interest in Reason's mission are encouraged to apply.
More here: http://reason.org/about/jobs
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm prefect for this job.
That's it, put Hugh in charge as Prefect of Proofreaders, or POP.
Hey, pop!
Once we get these spelling errors out of the way, Reason will be ready to enter the 19th century.
What's Lucy doing?
ZING
I was wondering how long it'd take for someone to make that point.
FIFY
Eye wondur if John has sended in his' applicashun yet.
Before firefox had spell check i got so much shit for posting here.
Aw, Josh, I'll still give you shit.
8!
I'll do it for free if I'm allowed to whap the offending writer on the knuckles with a ruler each time I find an error.
The errors are likely from the scan.
Then whap the scanning company's sales rep.
Does one need to be a grammar nazi, or can grammar quislings apply?
"El Deduce"
Fabius Maximus Punctator.
By proofreading, do you mean a proofreader could insert the phrase, "No, fuck you, cut spending" or some other popular Hit & Run catchphrase wherever he wants?
or insert Alt Text?
Surely that's the main reason they need proofreaders!
I'll.get.right on.it.
I assume you've signed some sort of affidavit that you're not making these positions temporary in order to avoid "health insurance law" requirements.
Based on the number of errors I've seen, I think Reason needs permanent proofreaders.
Calling every content-generating employee an "editor" doesn't seem to help.
I'm happy to help as long as they realize that females are to be called "wimyn" (or some derivative thereof). And I insist that irregardless is a perfectly cromulent word.
Disirregardless is better.
Ah, this kind of post embiggens my mind.
That's a perfectly cromulent word.
nonregardfuly
I think that would be uningenuous.
Antidisindubitably.
Wow...I misunderestimated you guys.
For the love of all that is holy, will the proofreader who gets hired please put a comma after comma-carrying nouns such as places or dates?
E.g., from the jobs link above:
They are Washington, D.C., offices!
Thank you.
I would like to register my affinity for the Oxford comma and the British handling of quotation punctuation.
I'm obstinate about the use of the serial comma. I'll allow the stupid dropping of the last comma, foisted upon an innocent world by journalists, but only if it's consistently used throughout the document. It never is.
The Oxford comma isn't my big peeve though. That is reserved for commas located within quotation marks. The British handling of quotation puncuation is clearly superior to ours.
I agree, though I tend to use our system just because it's been beaten into me. I figure a comma should go inside the quote if it's part of the quoted text. Otherwise, no.
I'm not sure what the British way of doing things is, but I put the punctuation inside the quotation marks when it is part of what belongs in the quotation marks, though in school I was taught to always put it inside the quote.
That's pretty much it.
It's not really a peeve, but my sort of typological obsession is proper use of quotation marks.
Same here. Same guidelines followed today. Same weird instruction yesterday.
I would like to second Sudden's preference for the British handling of quotation punctuation. I have no strong preference on the Oxford comma, but enjoy bringing it up at cocktail partiez to see who might be a punctuation nerd.
Something else that annoys me is stuff like this: Two Weeks Notice. That's a movie. It cost millions and millions to make, and many additional millions to promote. In all of that, no one said, "Hey, isn't it Two Weeks' Notice?"
They probably should've named it Too Weak to Notice.
I'm fortunately and blissfully unaware of anything about that movie except its title.
I've never seen the movie either, but I felt the need to recreate my best Jon Lovitz as The Critic impersonation.
A wildly underrated animated classic.
That was a great one. I think they have the episodes on youtube.
Apostrophe use related to two digit years drives me nuts. I saw a medical report with 98' as a year. It's '90s not 90's.
Quotation marks as emphasis. THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE FOR, JAGOFFS!
My approach to commas is to use them only when they make the meaning more clear. Style guides be damned. I'll use the serial comma as needed. THough I can see the argument for strict consistency.
Is that a thing?
Or, Washington, DC, offices if you want to go all modern postal abbreviation.
I nominate SugarFree as hyperlink-checker.
Wrecker!
I, too, volunteer on the condition that I can also bring the articles up-to-date by removing cis-gender-privileged heteronormative terminology. And, of course, applying The Elements of Style rigorously.
I'll do it as a side job if I can rewrite everything as if Ernest Hemingway were the editor, and I can insert bullfighting articles.
You cannot employ The Elements of Style because the authors being Strunk and White may other some less privilged.
Rejected, too verbose.
Resumbitted:
Strunk & White?! OTHERER!!!!1!!1!!!
No interrobang?
For shame!
(I have no idea if that'll work)
I debated finding coding for interrobang.
The interrobang should be pleased anyone considered it at all.
Ampersands? All caps? Ones used in the middle of excessive punctuation?
BANHAMMER, ONE YEAR.
Also, resumbitted? What is that, German?
"ARTISTIC PROTEST YOU TROGLODYTE!!!"
Omit needless words, motherfucker.
You used three words too many.
(Note above also conforms to Place the emphatic words of a sentence at the end, bitches.
Reason, I am available Wednesdays and alternate Saturdays at reasonable rates.
And I omitted the closing parenthesis as a form of artistic protest, so let's not get all up my ass about that.
You used bold?
ARTISTIC PROTEST YOU TROGLODYTE!!!
Bold, really? I suppose no italics would be permissible if you were referring to the foundation, but bold?
You mean I've been giving it away for free all these years when I could have been paid? Day-um.
Tonio's dreams of being a gigolo died before they began.
Or were you not talking about selling your body?
I wonder if the Reason folks are running an over/under on how many smart ass comments this post would generate?
I'm mildly surprised they posted it here. I mean, it's not like they couldn't have just posted it like a normal job, without risking the dreaded commenter/editor. This is the first step towards that horrid possibility.
Well, there are plenty of commenters showing off their proofreading skills (in a singularly charming way) every day. Perhaps they see a hidden pool of talent. I wonder who will really apply.
Given the job description, isn't the proofreader trying to to make scanned text conform to the original text -- even if the original is incorrect?
If so, then all these hopes for corrections are for naught. You'll be correcting "a81iction" to "affliction", not deciding whether that comma should have been inside or outside those quotation marks.
I defy your editorial conventions.
You know who else needed someone to double check his work?
Heinrich Schliemann?
No, he got it just right when he made it all up--"Look, Agamemnon's wife, reincarnated!"
I Was the Fuhrer's Editor. That would fucking rule. Just like Downfall, except completely made up with a fictional editor, who was there from Mein Kampf on. Secret Jew? Or maybe secretly gay? Or both? Or something else?
Most of Obama's ambassadorial nominees?
Was it supposed to be Van Camp's: My Struggles with Pork and Beans?
They should contact this guy
Fuck this, I want to be a fact checker. YOU JUST BEEN FACT CHECKED!
Some old school print articles on the web would be swell. Proofreading a bunch of ones I'm not interested in, though, would make me choke myself.
So why does Reason presume it needs a "temporary" proof-reader?
There's definitely some funny business going on. Notice, they give the choice between working remotely or from their D.C. office; why? Shouldn't this be a purely remote job?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think their crossing out of "butter" was just a comical flourish. I believe they want someone to churn butter for them, and they're using this "proofreader" position as a means to test the water.
We may be jerks, but we're not idiots. I didn't move from the farm to the big city just to churn butter for a bunch of paleo cosmotarians. Churn your own damn butter, Gillespie.