I am Joe Clark, a journalist and author in Toronto. I am an experienced editor with, additionally, 30 years’ experience in typography and graphic design (mostly as a critic, not a practitioner). I wrote a book on Canadian English (and one other book). I am a stickler for accuracy.
So, when I was handed my copy of the CAP report, two things happened.
-
My heart sank, because it was a total mess.
-
I decided to fix it.
This 60,000-word report would cost, at market rates, about six grand to copy-edit. And that would take easily two weeks, not including time spend implementing corrections. You didn’t have that kind of time or money. So if the report were ever to be copy-edited, it would have to happen after publication. That’s what is actually happening.
What’s wrong with the original?
-
It’s an overlarge, untagged PDF, a format nobody likes and one that is completely inappropriate for a document with nothing but text and graphics. Due to lack of structural tagging, the PDF is inaccessible to blind people; it’s also internally malformed.
-
There is no “typography” per se. This thing was banged out in a mile-wide measure of Arial, with not enough lead. It’s difficult bordering on impossible to read, which explains why nobody but me will have actually read the whole thing.
-
There are thousands upon thousands of copy errors, starting on p. 6.
-
There is no attempt to use Canadian English, with a mishmash of U.S. and U.K. spellings that doesn’t match the mishmash we use in this country. (For the record, there is no such place as the 519 Church Street Community “Center.”)
-
There are dozens of errors of sense, i.e., errors where it is unclear what the authors actually mean. Alarmingly, most of those errors of sense are found in the recommendations that are supposed to be implemented.
-
There are numerous unattributed “facts,” statements, and photographs.
Don’t believe me? Of course you don’t. Will these pictures suffice as proof?
Outcome
When this is done, we’ll have:
-
The original, highly defective, basically unusable and unreadable PDF, for archival use (and no other purpose).
-
Two formats that will become the canonical versions everybody uses:
-
A fully-corrected HTML version, in a single file and in multiple files, that I will host; Pride Toronto, CAP, or anyone else can host a duplicate version.
-
An ePub E-book that will work well on any E-book reader that isn’t a Kindle, including iPhones and iPads.
-
-
Eventually, a typeset version (in tagged PDF), which, I predict, will actually be shorter than the untypeset, unreadable, 220-odd-page original.
Don’t be Toronto-stupid about this
Toronto is the only major city that is so committed to mediocrity and so hostile to actual expertise that a project like this would actually be criticized. If you aren’t clear on what I’m saying here, let me make it simple: Don’t be so Toronto-stupid as to blast this project. You have no right to be angry and outraged! The original report is a mess and needs to be fixed.
-
Copy-editing is not censorship. You have the right to misspell words and write incomprehensible sentences. You don’t have the right to get away with it.
I’m going to be very, very clear about this, because Toronto is so politicized as to be stupid on this issue: You don’t know anything about my political viewpoint or viewpoints. You don’t need to. They have no bearing whatsoever on my work in correcting this report. When well done, copy-editing becomes invisible. Apart from errors of sense (see above and below), only outright spelling and grammatical mistakes will be changed.
To be even clearer: If you think I can’t remain impartial in editing this document, what you’re actually saying is you couldn’t. I can.
-
The intent of the report will not be changed without consultation. No sense will be altered without consultation.
This site is the consultation. It exists to enable CAP authors and Pride Toronto to explain what they really meant so that errors of sense can be corrected. All unambiguous copy errors will simply be corrected. (You can run a diff on the original and the edited version to find them, if you want to spend weeks rifling through thousands of small changes.)
Just in case you were expecting to get on your high horse and loudly complain about how I am violating the sacred “integrity” of your report, think again. Your report is atrocious in execution and together we’re going to fix it!
Only someone who is Toronto-stupid would dare to object to making something better. Your move.
I don’t have the right to do this,
but I’m doing it anyway
I am quite well versed in Canadian copyright law. I absolutely do not have the right to create a derivative work from the original report. It is a straight-up violation of the authors’ copyright (but not moral rights).
I am forging right ahead anyway, because this thing is an absolute disaster and has to be repaired. It is a report that will be used daily by Pride and its supporters for years into the future. The report has to be repaired and I’m doing it even though it is quite illegal.
I ran this project past my copyright lawyer, who immediately agreed it was illegal, then said you should be thanking me for it.
Who can comment on this site?
Only the authors of the CAP report and Glen Brown and Francisco Alvarez from Pride Toronto. But anyone can read the site.
Links
-
My page about this task
-
Copy-edited documents for the Dispute-Resolution Process (which arguably should not be hyphenated); the originals there are also a complete mess.
When will this be done?
Not before Pride 2011. This thing is taking forever. I have been picking away at it, but the fact that I expected nothing but opprobrium and opposition from authors who are falsely proud of their work and hostile to my corrections made it even less attractive to hurry up the project.
