Talk:Writer

Gain?

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

Categorization

I LOVE YOU :}

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)

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

Heard Writer and Author have different meanings TRUE?

Article lumps writers and authors together .The present concensis is that Authiors have published and have been paid for there writings Writers have not!(DatedbyhmeonThur.Aug0,20092stcent aM. DR.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC forrecords"X")SoCalKid (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It's very difficult to identify a difference between authors and writers. A person might be "an Author" by title, and another "an author of [something]" by action. But, in a literary sense, all authors are writers.

It is more accurate to suggest these:

An author creates something original. All authors are writers. Not all writers are authors.

Payment for writing has never been a requirement for either. Some writers are not authors, but they are paid for their writings, just as some authors have never been paid.

All writers must possess the ability to use language correctly and effectively, though, for slipshod writing makes for slipshod communication.

Persons who wish to be regarded as writers must first earn the title by proving that they take pains to ensure the accuracy of their language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.225.61 (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Does Functional Writing Count?

I consider myself a software writer. Does writing that has to execute/work count? Lycurgus (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Writer" & "Author"

I just realized that Category:American authors is a soft redirect to Category:American writers. Although the terms have some overlap, my understanding is that "author" connotes "book author." Maurreen (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Category help?

If anyone is interested in category work, some "writer" cats need diffusion. For example, Category:American writers directly contains almost 3,000 articles, and Category:Writers directly contains more than 300. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

External link issues

I deleted a reference to an obscure editing tool (being a writer myself I have a fair idea of widespread tools for writers such as Ulysses, Scrivener etc.). Added a (in my mind useful) reference to fictionaut, which is a hugely successful free community for fiction writers that has grown since 2008 at an amazing rate. birkenkrahe (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup & Citations

I've added the "Cleanup" and "Citations needed" tags to this article for a couple of reasons. It seems to lack sufficient proper sources, contains some statements that seem to be more opinion than fact, and in general the article could use more (verified) content. I’ll see if I can help with this a little later, but thought it would be good to note that the article needs work done in order to try and comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No_original_research, and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. - Therandom (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup? Overhaul! Or delete! Either way, worst wiki article ever!67.190.86.13 (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)