Demand Media Studios processes several thousands of articles for prominent websites every month; such as, ehow.com and livestrong.com. It has been reported that the practices of the company border on the scurrilous. While touting the image of anti-plagiarism, the company lays a heavy burden on writers that are only allowed to cite online resources for article production. This makes the only way to generate content to reword the writings of other authors only found online. To truly gain an understanding of the burden being reported by content writers for Demand Studios this reporter took on the job of writer with Demand Studios. The company is quite aware of the precarious situation it is in, and takes every measure to take no blame for its practices. In fact, on several occasions Demand Studios issues requests that resources sited for article production be altered and/or fabricated if the resource where the direct information came from is not well-known. It is encouraged to take legal information from government websites and reword it in a way that becomes erroneous and nearly criminal, since statutes are not allowed to be quoted directly, due to the fear of plagiarism lawsuits. This practice ultimately provides false or unclear information to the reader concerning the law. The damage is left to the reputation of the writer who is forced to comply in order to get paid for the hours of research contributed to an article. The idea of the websites this company represents is to generate online interaction; page downloads and contact with links off of the page.
There is an attempt to lay the blame of these practices on the Writer by taking advantage of the youthful mindset. The company requires that a Writer post their name and photo to take blame for misrepresented information. If one does write for Demand Studios , it is recommended that biography information not be provided. The company will still accept writers without this biography information and the articles will simply be credited to "...Contributor." Demand Studios functions under the management practice of employing individuals as copy editors, or CE's, that operate on vastly differing opinions that demand preferences, not bordering on the arbitrary, but plunging headlong into it. This creates a situation where an author may spend several hours gathering information on a topic and writing an article, but later have the article rejected based on the limited interpretation of an unfamiliar copy editor who questions the techniques of professionals or novices with direct experience in a craft. Again, sources may only come from the limited amount of online articles. Following the illusion of an equal workplace is further falsified by Demand Studio's copy editors allowing a onetime revision to an article. If the demands of the copy editor, no matter how arbitrary, aren't met the article is "rejected" by that copy editor and the time and effort spent on the article is null-in-void, regardless of the relevancy of the information. There is no effort to respect the writer's contribution by attempting to get the article to publication. The copy editor often rejects an article if one isn't willing to falsify sources that appear more relevant. The company further touts the allusion that their articles are of a verified and confirmed nature. Verification is to be the alleged duty of the copy editing team. In general, a good copy editor edits grammatical content and comments on the tone or overall meaning of the article and works with an Author to hone the content for the reading public. However, the company, in an attempt to further the image of being an authority (not only of online content, but) over the talent of their writing staff uses the tactic that permanently backs the copy editor. On several occasions revisions were met with rejections, and the onetime appeal was always backed by the copy editing team; showing this reporter of vast experience that the arbitrary nature of the copy editor trickles down from the upper management. Complaints that reached upper management were scoffed at and the writer's ability is denigrated. There is not representation for the writer on staff to act as an intermediary for writer complaints. The only way to oppose the copy editor's opinion is to notify another managerial copy editor, none of which, in this reporter's encounters, have created any meaningful literary content, but attempt to emulate the language without insight or understanding to promote a sense of superiority towards the unfortunate writers that fall prey to these types of companies. The grammar and language used by the writer must remain extremely simple for the copy editor to grasp what it means. Expect articles to be rejected and the writer degraded for assignments claimed, from the list of available assignments, if upon review the copy editor determines that he/she doesn't approve of the pre-determined assignment title; for which, the author that accepted the title has no control over, regardless of the relevancy of the information provided. The burden of production, the burden of loss, and the burden of proof falls to the author in an attempt to create an employee atmosphere that undermines creative talent and effort. Ultimately, the arbitrary demands of the copy editor writes the article while the name of the author is still stuck to it. It appears as if Demand Studios was created as a fund generating machine that generates page impressions over relevance and is meant to take advantage of young naïve writers. In the direct experience of this reporter, this is a company better left off the resume. It is a poor environment for a writer to develop and expand in, but a fine place to grow the pretentiousness of those that correct grammar as we speak it to their personal and unstable preference.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
About Jrli
She is a very passionate writer currently try to get into Jittery Monks, Lets see how it goes. |