ฉบับภาษาอังกฤษ
I’m an editor, so you would expect me to argue that humans do a better job than software when it comes to editing written English – after all, my job depends on it. However, just think how easy my life would be if I could just feed every one of my editing jobs into a computer and get perfect results. Don’t think I haven’t tried – though purely to see what happens – although I have to report that it’s definitely not a good idea.
Most software will identify errors and make suggestions. It’s certainly a good idea to use it as it will pick up some of your mistakes, but it probably won’t find them all. The most basic errors for most spelling and grammar software will be spelling mistakes, but for the most part, the system will only flag words that are not in its database. So if you write “form” when you mean “from” it will slip through the net, because both words exist. More advanced software may also pick up grammatical issues, so if you write “there” when you mean “their” you will be notified. But that won’t work with “hyperthermia” and “hypothermia” as they’re both nouns and both correctly spelled… but which one should it be? That’s a question that needs a human response.
The next problem is consistency, and this comes in two forms. First of all, when I’m proofreading a long document, I have to make sure that capital letters, punctuation, citations, headings, captions, numbering systems and so forth follow the same patterns throughout the document. This involves making changes to things that are not actually wrong, but are simply presented in a slightly different format to the way it was done on previous pages. I might use software to help with this – for example I may want to check that the symbol “&” appears for citations in parentheses, but the word “and” is used when it appears as part of the text. This has to be a consistent usage pattern throughout the document, so I’ll use the software to find every instance of “&” so I can check that it’s been used correctly.
The second aspect of consistency is in the writing style, especially when the writer has been paraphrasing from other sources. Software can certainly make suggestions about the best words to use, but it can’t necessarily understand how to choose those words in order to keep consistency in the overall tone of the document. A human editor will be able to make changes which ensure that the text flows in the same style throughout.
The final advantage offered by the human touch is that an editor will understand the purpose of the document, and will know what is to be communicated to whom, and why. This is something that software cannot yet take into consideration. When I’m editing a university application, or a research paper, I will be thinking about how the reader will respond to the way the information is presented, and I will be making subtle changes to deliver that message in the best possible way for each particular situation.
In conclusion, if you want to know whether you should use software, the answer is yes – it can help to tidy up your work and remove some of the errors. But after that, there’s no question that only a human editor can bring your work up to the standard required.