I tend to agree with GLB here as well.
One addendum... I think for a publication like ours -- i.e. not a scholarly or important news source in the sense of journalism -- it's OK to correct slight errors in quotations, as long as it's clear what the author's meaning was. For instance, fixing a verb tense or pronoun agreement, the proper name of a thing, or something that might have been caused by the author's use of English as a second language. Those minor corrections don't change the sense of what the speaker wanted to convey.
Paul
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:21 PM Gregory Lee Bartholomew < gregory.lee.bartholomew@gmail.com> wrote:
FWIW, I think I agree more with Ben's "take" that it should be avoided because it might be seen as passive-aggressive. I suspect part of the point of sic is to inform readers that what is written isn't proper English so that no one will be tempted to imitate it elsewhere in their own speech or writing. That is probably more of a concern for a bigger news publication than it is for our small world. I also think trying to reenforce proper grammar in the modern era of acronyms like "LOL" and "FWIW" is probably a lost cause anyway.
Also, I think being in quotations is sufficient to indicate that what is written is not the work of the editor/writer. So sic is a bit redundant and unnecessary in that sense.
On Tue, 2020-02-18 at 11:47 -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
Hello all,
To add my 2c worth, I don't particularily mind it's (sic) use when it is quoting verbatim, and especially if Editors need to apply a correction to the article. I do agree with Ben on the concern of overuse.
Stephen
On Tue, 2020-02-18 at 11:06 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:35 AM Gregory Lee Bartholomew < gregory.lee.bartholomew@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Ben. I'm just looking for editing guidelines. I'll be sure to avoid using sic in articles that I edit for the magazine.
If you think it's appropriate, then by all means use it. It might be good for us to develop some consistent editorial practice for it. I'm not going to object if we decide that liberal usage is best.
My take, and I welcome disagreement, is that we should use it when quotes are significantly difficult to understand (counterpoint: we should just not use those quotes instead) or when they contain factual inaccuracies (and again, we should probably avoid those quotes or provide better context for them).
I understand the desire to accurately represent quotes while also indicating to the reader that we are competent editors. If we were a news publication, then I'd be more inclined to use direct quotes with sic. But we're a volunteer magazine, and although we strive for (and IMO achieve) a respectable level of professionalism, our standards are naturally going to be different.
All of this is to say that I have reasons why I think we shouldn't use it, but I don't want to discourage discussion of the topic. This is a collaborative effort, and everyone is welcome to tell me (and anyone else) when they disagree.
-- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis _______________________________________________ Fedora Magazine mailing list -- magazine@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to magazine-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/magazine@lists.fedoraproject.o... _______________________________________________ Fedora Magazine mailing list -- magazine@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to magazine-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/magazine@lists.fedoraproject.o...