Talk:Ghostwriter

Improving Wikipedia

Make Wikipedia better by backing up the information in this article with sources. I am especially curious to see some sort of verification that certain major authors have used ghostwriters, as mentioned in the article. --DeanoNightRider 06:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Article seems to have an unreasonable bias against ghostwriting

I added the notice about the article being biased because the article has a strong tone against ghostwriting when I don't think it's appropriate. In academia it's a severe academic offense. However in other forms of writing it's (in my opinion) perfectly fine to hire, or be hired, for the purpose of paying for content where the author isn't getting credit. They are getting paid for their work and typically know this is what's going on. Can someone go through and clean up the tone? If others disagree about the ethics of using a ghostwriter for general use we should state the controversy immediately after the introduction.

Freelancer1234 (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I just skim-read it again and I have to see I don't detect a particularly hostile tone toward the topic - it's not one of Wikipedia's best articles for a number of reasons, but it seems fairly objective and descriptive. Could you quote some of the particular passages that you think are questionable? Barnabypage (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

--- I'm referring to the bias against ghostwriting in some of the sections past the intro. I corrected some of it in my prior edit, but I think it's there still.

Freelancer1234 (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Last edit by 68.169.242.117

I revert an valuable yet controversial contribution (see difference) made by the user 68.169.242.117 (signed Claudia Suzanne) becouse:

• It is not written in encyclopedic style
• It removes mindlessly a big part of work of previous contributors (not in Wikipedia spirit)
• It is done from IP guilty of vandalism
• It is signed in a way that looks like a publicity of her ghostwriter services

Still I suggest editors of the article to look at her contribution, because of maybe some valuable ideas -- DariuszT 04:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is very unencyclopedic, and looks unprofessional. The large edit made by "Claudia Suzanne" didn't look much better (From what little I read), but should probably be merged in without the advertising.

Cecil Adams

Obviously some decision needs to be made on whether Cecil Adams should be included in the list of ghostwriting teams. I say he should be left out, precisely because there is disagreement on the subject: there are enough uncontroversial examples without struggling over the inclusion of a controversial one. --Paul A 02:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I forget all the details, but at one point his staff started signing some articles in a way that made it clear Adams was not always the main author. Was some ghostwriting going on before then? It seems likely, even reasonable. Notice that the Cecil Adams article doesn't even mention this in passing. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Novilization" of Star Wars books

Unless my memory is faulty, I seem to remember a different author for every Star Wars movie-turned-book, seeing as Terry Brooks wrote the novel Star Wars: Episode I, based on the movie, and another author wrote Episode II. I can't seem to find these books anywhere, though, to confirm my memory... I'll check amazon.com or some place later. [unsigned]

Ghostwriter status in the Star Wars series only applies to Star Wars Episode 4. If I recall correctly, this book, like the movie was originally tiled "Star Wars". The other movie novilizations along with all of the expanded universe ones were directly corrected to their authors. Joncnunn 18:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My copy of "Star Wars" (i.e. the novelisation of 'Episode IV') is credited to George Lucas. It's a 1978 reprint of the BRITISH paperback edition, which itself was first published in 1977. Mr Larrington (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

hi 50.233.202.66 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"Essay mill services do not violate the law"

I have removed the statement that "Essay mill services do not violate the law by providing ghostwritten papers; the act of academic fraud and misrepresentation only occurs when the student submits the ghostwritten paper as their own work."

This is a very bold and sweeping interpretation of the law, not only for one jurisdiction but for the entire world. I don't think that it is possible to say with confidence that, in every country, there is no offence of conspiracy to commit fraud when the paper is commissioned and/or provided - i.e. the ghostwriter knows full well that his essay will be used fraudulently and he conspires with the person who commissions him to produce that essay to be used for fraudulent purposes. As a lawyer, albeit not a criminal lawyer, that looks like conspiracy to commit fraud to me.

If it is true someone could say 'there have been no reported cases where a ghostwriter has been charged with fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud, but I think it would take more than a quick search on Google to be able to make even that statement with confidence... WeAreSilver (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality of Indian ghostwriters on a par with US, UK or Canadian ghostwriters

The statement "Outsourced ghostwriters whose qualities are at par with US, UK or Canadian ghostwriters" is a value judgement rather than a statement of fact and should, if it is true, be changed to something like "Outsourced ghostwriters whose qualities are considered by [?] to be at par with US, UK or Canadian ghostwriters", with a source quoted. I have not amended it because I have no idea whether this statement is actually true. WeAreSilver (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ghostwriting in music

Why does the article make no reference to ghostwriting in music - specifically rap music? Is there a similar page for that?Illuminattile 21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghostwriting in music should be mentioned somwhere. Especially in rap, it's kind of the hip hop industry's dirty little secret that a lot of big time rappers employ ghostwriters for their rhymes (and remember, it's not like most of these rap guys play instruments or produce their own tracks, so if they are not writing their rhymens what exactly are they contributing?) Royce Da 5'9 publicly stated that he wrote tracks for Dr. Dre's album Chronic 2001, after which Dr. Dre and Eminem dissolved their relationship w/ Royce (presumably because he let the cat out of the bag that Dre doesn't write his own rhymes). The Onion AV Club just ran a blog post about this issue : http://www.avclub.com/content/node/54276

Hi, there was a hip hop section, but someone discreetly removed it, and/or it was erased by accident. I have put it back.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to add a subsection about ghostwriting in stage musicals (lyrics or music, or even the book). Outside of the fact that arrangers and orchestrators are ubiquitous in musicals, the one blatant example of outright ghostwriting that I know of involves Hello, Dolly!, for which Bob Merrill wrote a portion of lyrics for one song, and the whole music and lyrics for two other numbers, with all credit given to Jerry Herman (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Merrill). There must be other examples, as well as rationales for the practice. Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Pen Names

The section on pen names doesn't really look like it belongs to this article. Wouldn't it be more logical to put this in the Pen name article and link to it from here? Anguis 03:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the Pen name article, it looks like everything in this section is already there, so I'm going to go ahead with just removing it, and putting a link to that article instead. Unless someone has a good reason to want it here as well. Anguis 19:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive of fake reference from mainpage

"Essay mills and ghostwriters providing customized essay-writing ask for the course outline, topic, number of sources, and the mark that the student hopes to get for the essay (e.g., an "A-", "C+", etc.). While some select a high grade on the ghostwritten paper to boost their average, other students with poor grades may choose to purchase a paper that deliberately contains errors, which will receive a grade of "C+", because this will reduce any suspicions that they have committed academic fraud."

Removed b/c it was masquerading as a reference, and it's not sourced.

Janet13 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, why do you call it a fake reference? It is called a footnote. It provides extra information. I am being polite here, but your language is arguably offensive, with the words "fake" and "masquerading". I put it there to provide additional info for readers. There was no attempt to pretend that it is a reference.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Blog Ghost-writing

The section on ghost-writing blogs seems confused. A ghost-writer should be the one writing the blog posts; hiring people to post comments and votes to simulate support of the post is an example of astroturfing. As a freelance writer, I hire out to assist with blogs - by writing the posts for the bloggers themselves - but spamming a bunch of comments under several fake names is something I wouldn't do for any money.

The difference is that one is a collaborative effort of creating content, while the other is nothing but paid marketing, and very deceptive at that. Am I biased by my work point-of-view, or do I have a valid point? hosiah 03:10 28 June 2007 (EST)

I want to add that the sentence "Blogs are sometimes rated according to how many web 'hits' they get from users viewing the page, and this rating is used by advertisers considering paying for ad space on a blog website." is way to vague, shows a distinct lack of knowledge and precise terms, lack of sources/citation and is potentially wrong anyways, due to the latest Google updates. Furthermore "sometimes rated", by whom? I assume the editor meant Google? But if so, it is not "sometimes" rated this way, it is (either) rated like that or NOT ! I hope some SEO- & Google expert can provide more proven, to-the-point information, as I myself don't have it, I just know that the above is wrong. Most advertisers "pay per click" (or rather by conversion %) by the way, traffic or (hard to measure) "views" don't really do it anymore in 2012. --Philipp Grunwald (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree totally with user hosiah. A ghost writer who writes a blog for a celebrity or other person is one thing. A person hired to post blog comments, or blogger adding comments to his own blog under another identity does not fit the definition of ghost writer. A major edit is needed here. Because it elevates folks who write comments under a pseudonym to the ranks of writers who write — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp3lly (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Any use?

http://www.caslon.com.au/ghostingnote.htm 195.68.89.135 (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

John McCain's Book

John McCain's book The Faith of My Fathers was written by him and his administrative assistant, Mark Salter. Salter received co-authorship credit. Unless someone has a citation to indicate a third, un- or undercredited author, it appears that this work doesn't fall into the definition of "ghostwritten" as stated above. 131.96.47.8 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

ghostwriting

'Ghostwriting' is a predominant business-domain activity that fuels major organized crime, such as routine manufacturer music-album piracy and illegal copyrights. 'Ghostwriters' write what others could and should be able to write themselves (and are in fact trying to write), many times writing nonvoluntary information elicited from intimidated people. Ghostwriters also assemble in print many different inputs from many different people under one or a few names; ghostwriting is how one person's or many people's original experiences and thoughts are published under a narrator's name. The more language-proficient a ghostwriter is, the more capable of 'perfect' crimes are their controllers/clients.

Demand-networking operations are a continuous interference that feed ghostwriting activities and cause reactionary crimes of violence; often, the ghostwriters are not visible to their victims, or can be easily transported to evade identification. The word 'earnings' is perceived to be the impetus for such offensive strategies that also generate propaganda and use companies such as International Paper as claimed backers with reference to the phrase "freedom of the press" as rationale. beadtot66.217.68.90 (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC) A good article.. continue?Prisms and rain (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific American article on proposed medical ghostwriting ban

Scientific American article, Feb. 4, 2010, By Katie Moisse

"Ghostbusters: Authors of a new study propose a strict ban on medical ghostwriting"

RE: The opinion that a scientist who takes credit as an author on an article secretly written by a pharmaceutical company should face punishment like any other plagiarist

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ghostwriter-science-industry

DonL (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyrights

Who owns the copyrights, the ghost writer who actually wrote the whole book or the person the book is said to be written by? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.156.150 (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In general (and non-fraudulent circumstances), copyright is established by the writer, but the ghostwriter is usually commissioned by a contract or agreement, which should stipulate who the copyright holder is (usually the person or organisation who commissions the ghostwriter). Note that copyright law varies from country to country. Ezeebooks (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Legality

Why is this legal? Shouldn't it be the same as lieing or false advertisement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.251.190 (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

John Barry / Monty Norman

I will remove the reference to John Barry and Monty Norman: "John Barry claims to be not only the orchestrator, but also the original composer of the James Bond Theme, which is credited to Monty Norman, possibly due to a ghostwriting assignment or a "work-made-for-hire" contract.[28]"

as in many news stories, and Wikipedia's own Monty Norman page, it explains how Norman has won two libel actions to prove that he was the writer of the 007 theme, against John Barry's claims. It's not a good example for this page. SpaceHistory101 (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont think this article can be fixed.

There is so much wrong with it, from formatting and style to bias...citation needed tags, inconsistent linking to other wiki articles... It often reads like more of a guide on how to hire ghostwriters, with unsourced price schemes instead of information thats useful...I just think at this point, it would be better to discard all or most of it and start over. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually quite a lot of work has gone into the article. It is slowly improving...OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

ADDED ON 5 APRIL 15: I did a lot of work on this article today. It was truly a patchwork of so many redundancies and generic or uninformed comments.

This is a complex business. Many different kinds of clients avail themselves of ghostwriting, with different motives. Books or articles can help make or ruin reputations.

I am a professional ghostwriter with over 20 years in NY publishing. (I have worked in every facet of the business and I have to say that ghostwriting is unique.) I feel this entry is better now -- more accurate to the truth of the business, and better organized as an article.

Note: I am new to editing on this site and still learning the rules.

I only got a bit more than halfway halfway through Ghostwriter, but will return to it soon.

- Mariwiki77  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.98.242 (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC) 

Theo Feldman

There seems to have been a very short edit war around 1 June 2012 about "Theodore Feldman", the result being that his description stayed in the article - I've added some citation-needed tags to the section he's mentioned in as I can't find anything on the net of any substance about him. Any reason not to remove this altogether? 173.247.201.168 (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it, although the article needs a great deal more guff removed. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Manhattan Literary

This addition is being edit warred over. It looks to be adequately sourced. What are the objections to it? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It would appear to be a reference to a business the person attempting to include it is associated with. I don't see that it adds much to the article.—Kww(talk) 20:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That whole section is replete with primary sources (which I've just removed). At least this one appears in a secondary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

___________ Well, I am happy to be discussing this with you both. You strike me as neutral and fair people, after I reread through your summaries on this issue:

This all started when I revisited the Ghostwriter page a few days ago (after about a year) and found it tangled, tendentious, disorganized. To first address Kww's concern that I only care about Manhattan Literary, let me clarify:

I made various additions that were unrelated to M-Lit. I found the page a bit colorless, and tried to expand the palette with a reference (under Role) to Walter Isaacson, the hired writer of Steve Jobs' autobiography, since this is a recent book many of us read and it got heavily talked about in the industry. Isaacson refused to be led in any way; this was his main condition in taking on the work. I have mediated many a battle between ghost or co-author and client, and thought this might be of interest to readers thinking of hiring a world-class ghostwriter -- that they might have to forget about micromanaging the project. Perhaps this is the subject for another type of article, but I thought it added something of value. Well, it got deleted forthwith, with no edit summary other than "restored unmangled version."

Yes, there was a mangled aspect that remained after I cut through the first 50% of the page a few days ago -- I was reluctant to rewrite it entirely (removing entirely what others have written can be seen as vandalism on Wikipedia, I learned, and I did not want to rock the boat quite that much) and decided to leave in what I could.

I did add yet other changes. In one edit I changed the information about Mozart, who was in no way primarily a ghostwriter. He mainly had patrons, and there is a difference. On just a few occasions he did write music that others put their name on. But this hardly merits his picture on the Ghostwriter page. No where else on the Net could I find this emphasis on him as a ghostwriter, except in Wikipedia. Still, I left it in but qualified the inclusion, due to the Requiem, which was originally meant to have Ct. von Walpsegg's name on it (he paid for it), but it all got messed up and ended up as "Mozart's Requiem." I still feel it is wrong to put Mozart's picture on this Ghostwriter page -- too much emphasis on a role that was relatively small in his career. Anyway, this work got deleted immediately, without any explanation.

Back to Manhattan Literary and edit warring. I thought it unfair to have SEO Writer and Ghostwriter Ink up there -- especially when ML had been there from 2012 (I looked) and had gotten removed (and then SEO Writer appeared). This is all petty and solved by NeilN's removal of primary sources selling themselves. But I think if the co. has a NY Times or Washington Post of other well-referenced citation, then that is authority enough and probably accurate information on their pricing.

I have worked with most of these people -- the top of publishing is a small world, actually. Madeleine Morel (an icon in the field of ghostwriting, but not a writer herself), Manhattan Literary (small handful of writers that cover issues well on their website -- they describe the actual process well on the site), and many others. So, I thought it was valuable and did not understand why it had been removed. (Nor could I find in the edit history who originally removed it; I probably need more practice going through the data.)

The other side of the coin to liking a company and seeing them as emblematic and worthy or being an example: I actually did take offense to the co.s that remained after ML was repeatedly deleted, knowing they cite no books or other works, zero accomplishments on their websites and appear to be middlemen only.

At one point, I tried removing EVERYONE'S NAME from this Remuneration and Credit section but did leave the content and the footnotes -- this happened a few days ago (I left only Morel out of respect for her), but that did not work. The self referenced plugs came rifling back in for the self referenced companies.

Anyway, I tried to help the page in my own way. No person is totally neutral.

I know you can see my career as a potential conflict to the page, but it is also a potential asset. This is a hidden field; you need to have worked in it in some capacity to know it. I feel I could write a book on the complexity of writer/client collaboration -- and I wont! Life is too short.

I am quite amazed by this Wikipedia apparatus, meanwhile, and will keep learning about it. Thank you for mediating this, and to NeilN for stating a rule and then following it.

Rgds/ Mariko/aka Marikwiki77/ aka Sysiphus Mariwiki77 (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

12 April 2015 ________________ _________________________________________

13 APRIL:

re the addition of the Manhattan Lit info to the Ghostwriter page:

BTW, How does this get resolved? All the other editors, since this started around 2 April 2015, seem to have dropped out of the editing or discussion of the Ghostwriter page.(I've had to put so much work into this that it has become a matter of principle for me, at this point.)

Motives get murky -- of contributors and editors alike, I feel -- especially when reading through many different 'talk' pages last night. I think we need to look at the quality of the information here. Does the M-Lit ref. add anything useful? -- and is the secondary source reputable, and also useful, perhaps, as a footnote the reader can pursue.

In favor of inclusion:

1) The secondary source used here to include Manhattan Lit. is The Washington Post. Perhaps no other article in recent years has been as relevant to REMUNERATION AND CREDIT of the ghostwriter. In fact, the essence of this article is how and when a ghost should be credited, and what they are paid. (And every single reference to the article keeps getting deleted, in favor of generic information.)

If the inclusion of the footnote gets the reader to that article, they will find a wealth of supplementary information (unrelated to any specific firm or individual ghostwriter) on the topic.

2) Does the information add to the page?

To write that the ML pricing now "adds nothing to the page" is, I believe, inaccurate. Just by following the footnote, as stated above, would lead the reader to excellent supplementary information that is well balanced. But there is more.

The M-Lit. price point of $15,000 is now, by 2015, more common among experienced ghostwriters, whereas it used to be considered too little remuneration for a book. Better writers will now take on work for such a fee, but for shorter books that now have a place n the market (not so, before).

In the trade, length has always been an issue, and not just for the writer. Paper got increasingly expensive so publishers cared; or readers might have expectations for a certain length, especially in genre fiction (ex: mainstream historical fiction had to be over 100k words in the 1990s - 2000s, to even be acceptable to a publisher). Prices paid for books, and paid to have them written (remuneration to the ghost, in this context), are always affected by these length-considerations.

Now, by 2015, everything has changed.

One example is the following (related to remuneration): Kindle Singles has a market of over 30 million Kindle users. But this imprint has certain conditions: these books cannot be serialized, and they must be under 30k words. That is, new markets have emerged, just as Wikipedia has emerged. This 30k word-length of a book used to be in limbo --- the market did not really even exist for a 30k word text -- and so the $15,000 price point used to be nonexistent for reputable ghosts. Now this level of remuneration to a ghostwriter makes sense if the work is shorter.

You see, it is not so clear to the newcomer. We could include that info above in this section under question -- if you really wanted to give the reader a better understanding of what the different prices can mean. That is, "Morel charges this, Manhattan lit charges that" is not that helpful. Does that mean a less expensive service of equal quality, or is quality affected? How can good writers work for less? How do you choose? Etc.

Right now the page is bare bones. I think this has happened in order to clean it up first.

I would be happy to rewrite the section in a way that better informs the reader of different prices in relatively new markets.

Mariwiki77 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe propose specific text with sourcing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

_______________________________________ Okay, I will give that a go. Mariwiki77 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is my edit of the section Remuneration and Credit on the Ghostwriter Page. Prices have changed with new reader habits -- especially our habit now of reading shorter forms of text on the Net -- etc. Markets have changed also to accommodate the digital age, with imprints like Kindle Singles that are shorter, novella length books. I have essentially added a paragraph to this effect, and made a few minor adjustments to other paragraphs. >>

Extended content
Mariwiki77's draft

___________________

Here is the paragraph referencing Manhattan Literary, isolated, with a cleaner wording:

This price range reflects a standard that was in effect for several decades. It began to shift only recently with the emergence of new markets for shorter books. The novella-length text (about 35,000 words and under) was formerly a very small market, but has widely expanded with new imprints like Amazon's Kindle Singles. As a result, starting prices have come down by as much as half. This level of remuneration for a professional ghostwriter now makes sense, but only if the work is shorter. Manhattan Literary states that "book projects on the shorter side, tailored to new markets like the Kindle Singles imprint and others (30,000-42,000 words) start at a cost of $15,000."

References

Mariwiki77 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC) ________________

Re ongoing work for the inclusion of the Manhattan Literary ref -- this is quite new information in that it pertains to prices for recent, newer book markets:

NeilN, who has been following this, asked for removal of peacock terms, and for better development with citations: Here is that work, in the sandbox he set up at this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NeilN/sandbox

Mariwiki77 (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I propose not covering "remuneration and credit" at all. Pricing are volatile and transient things which will date quickly, and which Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not really intended to track.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Academic

Recent edits have added a huge section about essay mills, pointing out how hard they are to detect, how they're not illegal, and naming one supplier. Sound iffy to anyone else? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Where's Hurston?

Interested in knowing where the building is? here it is. It's been changed since the show was taped. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Manipulation of the article for advertisement purposes

The company Acad Write has been manipulating this article more than once. The same has happened to the German article "Ghostwriter", proof and the German discussion: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Ghostwriter

In this article it says: According to media reports, ACAD WRITE, one such international provider of ghostwriting services, claims to have ghostwritten more than 230,000 standard pages of academic content[25] and sold over 8,500 academic papers (including BA-, MA- and PhD-theses) since 2008,[26] with an 80 per cent increase in sales in the period from 2013 to 2014.[23]

Apart from the fact that this is hidden advertisement for a Acad Write, I have a big problem with the cited sources.

[25] is leading to the German website of a paper mill and does not provide this article with any information.

[26] is a press release written by Acad Write.

[23] is an article in which surprisingly only Acad Write is mentioned as ghostwriting company.

I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia and not an underground advertisement network for paper mills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malomata (talk • contribs) 11:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What Happened and Potential Ghostwriter

I don't disagree, it was probably ghost written, but to quote another user who reverted an identical section in different article, all that's currently being integrated is: "[a]n egregious misrepresention and misquoting of the source".

Couching the language a bit more, and linking to the book's acknowledgements itself maybe? I'm going to revert it for now.

Gdryke (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ghostwriter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150515065007/http://www.manhattanliterary.com/modules/wfchannel/index.php?pagenum=5 to http://www.manhattanliterary.com/modules/wfchannel/index.php?pagenum=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120801172621/http://www.writersunion.ca/content/ghost-writing to http://www.writersunion.ca/content/ghost-writing

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghostwriter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150331044042/http://www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/writers_resources/contracts/min2014.pdf to http://www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/writers_resources/contracts/min2014.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ghostwriter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117015909/http://www.zoomnews.es/40446/letras-y-tretas/quien-no-corre-vuela to http://www.zoomnews.es/40446/letras-y-tretas/quien-no-corre-vuela
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119110817/http://www.the-efa.org/res/rates.php to http://www.the-efa.org/res/rates.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

unsourced seciton on Roles

The following is unsourced and was moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN please do not restore without finding independent, reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them, and ensuring that this content has appropriate WP:WEIGHT in the article overall.

Roles==

Ghostwriters may have varying degrees of involvement in the production of a finished work. Some ghostwriters are hired to edit and clean up a rough draft or partially completed work, while others are hired to do most of the writing based on an outline provided by the credited author. For some projects, such as creating an autobiography for a celebrity, ghostwriters will do a substantial amount of research. Ghostwriters are also hired to write fiction in the style of an existing author, often as a way of increasing the number of books that can be published by a popular author.

Ghostwriters will often spend a period from several months to a full year researching, writing, and editing nonfiction and fiction works for a client. Ghostwriters are paid either per page, per each word, total word count, with a flat fee, with a percentage of the royalties of the sales, or by using some combination thereof.

The division of work between the ghostwriter and the credited author varies a great deal. In some cases, the ghostwriter is hired to edit a rough draft of a mostly completed manuscript. In this case, the outline, ideas, and much of the language in the finished book or article are those of the credited author. If it is agreed upon, for example in a signed contract, the ghostwriter will sign over all the rights to everything he or she adds into the work that is not otherwise copyrighted to someone else. In many cases, a ghostwriter handles most of the writing, using concepts and stories provided by the credited author. In this case, a ghostwriter will do extensive research on the credited author or their subject area of expertise. It is rare for a ghostwriter to prepare a book or article with no input from the credited author; at a minimum, the credited author usually jots down a basic framework of ideas at the outset or provides comments on the ghostwriter's final draft.

For an autobiography, a ghostwriter will typically interview the credited author, their colleagues, and family members, and find interviews, articles, and video footage about the credited author or their work. For other types of nonfiction books or articles, a ghostwriter will interview the credited author and review previous speeches, articles, and interviews with the credited author, to assimilate his or her arguments and points of view. Most of this work can be done over email via the Internet, through postal mail, phone or video calls, and other methods of instant communication.

Also, ghostwriters may work on accompanying documents, such as treatments for screenplays. Often, ghostwriters will work on related projects beyond the scope of professional ghostwriting, such as marketing, promotions, sales, publishing, or other related services for pay, in order to procure more clients and increase the total amount of their business.

-- Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

Does WP has policies on ghostwriters? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)