Now that another publication date is nearing, I must ask myself--what were my lessons learned?
- For one, make sure that your interview notes are more clearly detailed and defined.
Unfortunately I didn't have a recording device, so I couldn't pour over my interview after the fact. In the future, I will probably invest in some type of recording device.
- Secondly, don't be vague.
When I created my original write-up, I made too many assumptions about the tone and the facts, which almost caused me to be in absolute horror after seeing the edit. I immediately emailed David about it, and in retrospect if I had made things clearer or provided a basis for the story it may have helped cleared things up a little bit. Additionally, I should have followed a specific format, such as the popular Q&A style that other interviews have conformed to.
Lastly, make sure the facts are correct and consistent. To help understand that process more, I actually volunteered to help fact-check other articles. I have no doubt that I will gain additional insight as a result of my efforts.
Being that this is the first real effort in contributing to a project of this scale, I'd have to say that the initial ad-hoc structure of it kind of threw me for a loop. But as things developed over time, and I saw examples of other submitted works, it gave me a greater chance to understand what the style consensus was for this particular segment.
But you know, this kind of thing is still pretty fresh. From inception to conclusion, there will no doubt be changes and standards that develop over time. I'll take in that which I learned and apply it to all future efforts.
I look forward to the next release.
