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.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:21 PM Gregory Lee Bartholomew <
FWIW, I think I agree more with Ben's "take" that it
should be avoided
it might be seen as passive-aggressive. I suspect part of the point of sic
inform readers that what is written isn't proper English so that no one
tempted to imitate it elsewhere in their own speech or writing. That is
more of a concern for a bigger news publication than it is for our small
I also think trying to reenforce proper grammar in the modern era of
like "LOL" and "FWIW" is probably a lost cause anyway.
Also, I think being in quotations is sufficient to indicate that what is
is not the work of the editor/writer. So sic is a bit redundant and
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
> 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(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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fedora Magazine mailing list -- magazine(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to
> > magazine-leave(a)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:
Fedora Magazine mailing list -- magazine(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to magazine-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines