Communication Is Human: My Policies as an Editor, Writer, Plain Language Specialist, and Consultant

by Laura Edlund, published January 6, 2025*

People have a lot of questions about writing, editing, communication, publication, creative work, consulting, confidentiality, non-disclosure, other legal and ethical considerations, Chat GPT and other AI products, information, sources, credit, copyright, and more subjects. Here are some of my answers as of January 6, 2025.*

I do not use generative AI in my work as an editor, writer, plain language specialist, and consultant. One reason is that using generative AI would contradict confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements I have with many clients. This is the case even if the eventual outcome of the work is published.
Some of my clients may use generative AI, machine translation, large language models (LLMs), and the like in their work before or after my work on a communication. That is outside my control unless specifically stated in the contract I have with a client.
I use tools and processes such as PerfectIt and macros in my work. These are not generative AI.
I use my human intelligence—education, training, experience, and expertise gained over 30 years, continual professional development, and human critical thinking—to make decisions as I write, edit, and consult. I refer to research, references, professional standards, best practices, and good practices.
Information, facts, and evidence matter, and disinformation can harm. For that reason, I refer to sources of information and opinion, as noted below.
Research and evidence-based academic writing matter. Lived experience matters. Traditional Indigenous Knowledge matters. This is to acknowledge that information matters and sources vary.
In my own writing, I refer to specific sources, my experience, or my opinion to be clear about the basis for my writing.
In my own writing, I refer to sources and credit them appropriately, or I will be prepared to do so. If for reasons of confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements, privacy concerns, or other legal or ethical considerations, I can’t refer to a fact, statement, or experience, then I will not do so to respect those considerations.
Information and evidence changes over time, and knowledge is gained. I learn something new every single day. For that reason, in my own writing (on my web site, in posts on social media, on my resume), I will include the date of original publication or update.
I respect copyright and expect others to do the same. If you quote or adapt this policy statement, credit me as the source.

For more about writing, editing, plain language, and consulting services, please contact me at lauraedlund.ca.

#writing

#editing

#writer

#editor

#PlainLanguage

#consultant

#AI

#generativeAI

#AIpolicies

#InformationDisinformation

#PolicyStatement

#AcceptingNewClients

(*Edited to correct a classic January typo—that is, revising to the year 2025.)

The Chicago Manual of Style, 18th edition, some highlights

In August 2024, I posted on LinkedIn about the many updates in the new edition of the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) by looking at the new edition through a different lens in each post. The following combines my related posts under these headings: accessibility, global examples, geography and maps, artificial intelligence (AI), and still more… (a final catchall) based on my own recent or current work.

Note that these are only some of the many sections of CMOS and its updates from the 17^th edition to the 18^th edition. The CMOS update team has summarized all significant changes in a list. Kudos to the CMOS team for this huge update!

Accessibility
“2.143: Checking for accessibility
Works published in electronic formats should be checked to make sure they meet applicable accessibility requirements, including…”
“3.28: Alternative text and descriptions
To ensure accessibility in electronic publication formats for readers with print disabilities, publishers should include alternative text (‘alt text’) for any image that needs it….”
5.255: Making conscious choices
5.258: Common areas of biased language
5.261: Person-first versus identity-first
5.262: Ableism
11.135: Signed languages
11.138: Glosses in ASL
11.143: Transcriptions of signed sentences
“Bibliography of Additional Resources
1: Writing and Editing
Dreyer, Benjamin. Dreyer’s English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style. Random House, 2019.” and many other references.

Global examples

CMOS is used in the US publishing industry and in many other countries and industries. As an editor working in Canada for clients around the world, I use it as one source while localizing works for American, UK, or Canadian audiences. And I use it as one source while editing global subjects for global, American, UK, or Canadian audiences, and in translated works.

I was glad to see examples about US and British English, and to see many more examples from around the world. Here are some highlights:

5.17: Plural-form proper nouns
5.18 Anomalies of the plural
5.35: Pronoun number and antecedent

6.9: Periods and commas in relation to closing quotation marks
6.89: En dash as em dash

7.1: Recommended dictionaries

8.34: Honorifics
8.63: Legislative and deliberative bodies
8.68: Adherents of unofficial political groups and movements
8.113: Armies, battalions, and such

9.23: Non-US currencies using the dollar symbol
9.24: British currency
9.25: Other currencies

9.57: The decimal marker
9.59: Telephone numbers

10.17: Abbreviations for military titles

10.75: US abbreviations for weight and capacity

11: Languages other than English
11.49: Additional resources for Indigenous languages
11.50: Indigenous writing systems
11.52: Indigenous language authorities

14.137: Citing Indigenous sources of knowledge directly
14.195: Canadian legal cases
14.196: Canadian statutes

Geography and maps

8.46: Continents, countries, cities, oceans, and such
8.201: Maps
14.135: Citing maps

Artificial intelligence (AI)
4.5: Original Expression
”Copyright protects the original expression contained in a work.… The requirement that a human author has created the expression has become significant as the use of generative AI (artificial intelligence) has become significant. If an AI creates expression in response to human prompts, that is not enough to support a copyright. The human in charge must contribute something that by itself will support a copyright, and the copyright will be limited to what that human author contributes.”

3: Illustrations and Tables, 3.38: Crediting Adapted Material
“… If the illustration was created by or with the help of artificial intelligence (AI), that fact should be noted in the credit.”

14.112: Citing AI-Generated Content
“Authors who have relied on content generated by a chatbot or similar AI tool must make it clear how the tool has been used …. Any specific content, whether quoted or paraphrased, should be cited where it occurs, either in the text or in a note.”

And still more…

5.43: Identification of personal pronouns
5.51: Generic singular “they”
5.263: Gender-neutral nouns
5.265: Options for gender neutrality in pronoun use
5.266: Uses of singular “they”

6.119: Slashes for pronunciations
11.24: International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)

9.18: Numbers with abbreviations and symbols
9.22: Words versus monetary symbols and numerals

9.27: Currency with dates
10.46: Abbreviations for times of day
10.55: Miscellaneous technical abbreviations

Do editors fact-check writing? Fact-checking, accuracy, agreements, standards, and artificial intelligence (AI) including ChatGPT

Recently, a colleague on a committee asked me about fact-checking. Do editors actually fact-check the work of writers and subject experts? Shouldn’t the writer or subject editor do this instead of the editor?

Accurate? Fact-checked? Always important but even more so with AI

Is it accurate? Was it fact-checked? These have always been key questions for writers, authors, subject experts, editors, and anyone publishing content. These are particularly important with growing concerns about artificial intelligence (AI) and worries about AI making stuff up or failing to research with rigour. (See “Is it real or is it ChatGPT? (and does it matter?)” and “Using ChatGPT for Book Research? Take Exceeding Care.”)

But back to the question

Do editors fact-check writing? Editors can. I often do in my role as editor, but I do so based on discussions with my clients. When my role is writer, I always fact-check my own writing.

Professional editors are well-placed to fact-check or raise concerns about facts and inconsistencies in text. They can be the extra set of eyes on a document after the writer has read it 100 times and before it is published. Professional editors have long been well-placed to raise concerns about factual correctness, plagiarism, and copyright. And now they are well-placed to fact-check and raise concerns about accuracy or misinformation in the face of artificial intelligence (AI).

In practice

How this works in practice depends on the context and contract.

When I’m working with subject experts and they are writing about their specialty, I edit according to the contract with the client—so for structure, requirements for plain language, publication style, grammar, usage, mechanics such as spelling and punctuation, some of the preceding, or all—but I also use Track Changes and add comments to ask, for example, “Authors—see suggested changes for required style. Is this edit correct and clear?” or “Authors—see name variation here vs. page 20. Please confirm or change.” Then, at the last point that the writer sees the text, the writer signs off on the content.
With some clients, the contract spells out that the editor must “Check all facts that fall within the realm of general knowledge—basically anything that can be verified with a quick internet search: dates and details of events, locations, geographic references (directional, distance), historical references, famous quotations, etc.” and change the text or query any inconsistencies.
With still other writers and clients, I am to fact-check ALL stated facts, including dates and proper nouns, correct any errors based on authoritative sources, and flag those changes, or query the author to resolve concerns.

Industry standards

These varied approaches are backed up by industry standards and can be set out in a clear contract for each editorial project.

Editors Canada’s “Professional Editorial Standards” (2016) includes this standard:

“E14 Query, or correct if authorized to do so, inconsistencies (e.g., in spelling, punctuation, facts, visual elements, navigation elements, metadata, other content that may not appear on a published web page). Use judgment about the degree to which such queries and corrections are called for.”

As well, Editors Canada’s “Definitions of Editorial Skills” includes the following:

“Copy Editing

Editing to ensure correctness, accuracy, consistency, and completeness. It includes:

editing for grammar, spelling, punctuation, and usage
checking for consistency and continuity of mechanics and facts, including anachronisms, character names, and relationships ….”

And the same Editors Canada’s “Definitions of Editorial Skills” includes the following additional services that might or might not be included in the contracted editor’s scope of work:

“Fact Checking

Checking the accuracy of facts, citations, and quotes by referring to the writer’s original sources or to other authoritative sources….”

“Rewriting

Creating new material based on content supplied by a writer. It may include:

research
writing original material
fact checking ….”

Conclusion

So, do editors fact-check text? It depends. Many do. For clients or employers who hire editors, editors can be an extra defence against errors in published text. In practice, it helps to settle the details of who will fact-check what and create a sign-off stage at which point the writer or content publisher signs off on the text. With AI (ChatGPT and others) adding to the challenges facing writers and content publishers, pro editors can bring this distinct, value-added skill of fact-checking.