Metaphors for Revision

I found each of the eight metaphors for revision convincing, I've used each type of revision at least once. The type of revision I'm most comfortable with is the 'tying things off' method; however I also think this type is the hardest, or at least takes the longest. I use this type of revision for fictional or otherwise creative pieces, and I've found that the loose ends in that type of writing can be really big gaps - in which case the sewing metaphor is more accurate. I'll pull on the end of a loose string and accidentally tear a hole in my narrative, so I'll have to patch it up instead of just tie it up.

For most other types of writing, I find the painting and sculpting metaphor true to my style. My thesis statement, or my most important bit of my writing in any piece is like the foundation layer of a painting, which sets up color motifs, hints at style, suggests a pattern, etc. With each layer after that, I have the choice of sticking with the base layer's style, or I can alter it slightly by changing those aspects - such as a persuasive essay where the opposition's view may be considered first, then juxtaposed with my view. The sculpting metaphor works better for informative or technical writing. When writing about a subject I'll puke up a huge chunk of stone including everything I think is remotely relevant to the topic, then the task becomes chipping away the material until the text is concise and effective.

The 'view history' and 'discussion' tabs on wikipedia are important to note before editing an article. Another user may have ousted a bit of info that you want to include, and if you see that this is the case, you shouldn't 'go backwards' and add the info anyways. I find that the striking and molding metaphor works best for wikipedia article edits. The articles are like hot molten ore, pounded on at many angles by many different wordsmiths, eternally thrust back into the furnace as to keep fluid, to resist information stagnation. Someone mentioned that textbooks have different issues with updated information - while this is a shameless marketing tool, it also has something to do with information stagnation. Wikipedia is not bound, literally or figuratively. It is always mutable and molten, thus the revision process must be as well.