Who is the writer of this?
Executive summary
The documents supplied do not name a specific person as “the writer of this,” so a definitive, attributable author cannot be identified from the available reporting; instead the sources describe what “author” can mean, how authorship is legally and rhetorically understood, and the technical methods used to infer authorship when it is unknown [1] [2] [3] [4]. Any claim about a particular individual writing the text would go beyond what these sources support.
1. What “author” means in law and scholarship
Legally and conventionally, an author is the creator of an original work and that status carries copyright implications — U.S. law assigns rights to the author or, in the case of a “work made for hire,” to the employer or commissioning party [2]; academic and reference treatments likewise define an author as the originating agent of a text or creative work [1].
2. Competing theories: author as person versus author as function
Literary theory complicates the commonsense definition: Roland Barthes and later critics argue that meaning is not anchored solely in an individual author’s intentions, with the “author” functioning as a locus rather than a definitive source of meaning [1], while Foucault reframes the author as a constructed “author-function” rather than a simple personal attribution [5].
3. Practical clues editors use to find an author
For practical purposes—bylines, document metadata, and publisher records are primary leads; online pieces often display author information near the title or at the end, and the introduction or preface can contain attribution clues [6]. Style guides also instruct how to handle author names in citations, indicating the primacy of a named individual when one exists [7].
4. When the author is hidden: profiling and forensic tools
When no byline exists, computational and forensic techniques are used to infer authorship: author identification systems analyze lexical, syntactic, and stylistic features and can achieve useful accuracy by comparing unknown texts against known samples [4] [8]. Author profiling extends to demographic and stylistic inference but carries limits and uncertainties, especially with short or noisy social media texts [9].
5. Institutional and ghost authorship complicate attribution
Corporate, commissioned, or “work made for hire” situations muddy the waters because the legal author may be an employer or commissioning party rather than the individual who actually composed the words, meaning an apparent absence of a named writer in public-facing material can be deliberate or contractual [2].
6. Methodological limits: what these sources cannot tell about this specific text
None of the supplied sources identify a byline, metadata, or a forensic profile for the exact text in question, so the reporting cannot assert who physically wrote “this” document; the available material only explains definitions, methods, and philosophical challenges around authorship [7] [1] [4].
7. Balanced conclusion: the responsible answer to “who is the writer of this?”
Based on the evidence provided, the responsible, evidence-based answer is that the writer cannot be determined from these sources; instead, the path to an answer would be to check for a byline or metadata, consult the publisher or commissioning entity (because of “work made for hire” rules), or apply stylistic/forensic analysis with known-attribution samples — all strategies discussed in the reporting but none yielding a named author here [6] [2] [4].