On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:35 AM Gregory Lee Bartholomew <
gregory.lee.bartholomew(a)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