That’s what the [sic] is for. It’s showing “here’s what the person literally said, to make sure we’re not misquoting them.”
It’s standard practice, as “stepping up and taking charge” would mean substituting someone else’s words for your own, which is a slippery slope. “Oh he said X, but meant Y, so I’ll write that instead” can very easily be abused by people actively looking to misrepresent other’s words.
Source: BA Journalism, who had to use [sic] when quoting non-native English speakers (was part of an immigration story). Whenever possible, I’d try to clarify/ correct mid-interview: “oh, you said A, but I think you might’ve meant B. Is that correct?” That way, you know for a fact it’s still their words.
Urbandictionary.com is a mostly unmoderated wikiish popular-definition site. It does not have editors. It is not a publication. I was using the irony of polite language for that vulgar “publication” to be sarcastic on the assumption that most people know about urbandictionary. It also occurs to me belatedly that “that publication” is nonspecific and could reasonably refer to either the publisher of this article or, as was intended, urbandictionary.
The problem is, if you’re quoting someone or something, it is considered very unprofessional to make even the slightest changes, even correcting typos in written materials. That’s what the [sic] is for, to denote that this is literally how it’s written in the source.
The fact it comes from urban dictionary is immaterial. It could come from a Facebook post, a presidential press conference or a YouTube comment and the rules are the same. Journalistic codes of conduct don’t discriminate between sources when it comes to the handling of quotes.
The fact is, when you’re quoting something, anything, taking such liberties with the quote, even for seemingly innocuous/well-intentioned reasons, is a professional minefield no journalistic publication is going to want to touch.
Couldn’t run a spell checker?
What do you think [sic] means? Do you expect the average urban dictionary contributor to be able to spell?
no.
(edit: no* I don’t know what it means and now I’m embarassed)
Means they are deliberately quoting a source verbatim that they know contains an error, to avoid misrepresenting exactly what the source said.
thank you
You have made a mistake, learned from it and have backed down. You, sir, are covered in glory on this day.
I’m covered in something at least
I think the editors of that publication need to step up and take charge, they’re letting a lot of mistakes like this slip through the cracks.
That’s what the [sic] is for. It’s showing “here’s what the person literally said, to make sure we’re not misquoting them.”
It’s standard practice, as “stepping up and taking charge” would mean substituting someone else’s words for your own, which is a slippery slope. “Oh he said X, but meant Y, so I’ll write that instead” can very easily be abused by people actively looking to misrepresent other’s words.
Source: BA Journalism, who had to use [sic] when quoting non-native English speakers (was part of an immigration story). Whenever possible, I’d try to clarify/ correct mid-interview: “oh, you said A, but I think you might’ve meant B. Is that correct?” That way, you know for a fact it’s still their words.
Urbandictionary.com is a mostly unmoderated wikiish popular-definition site. It does not have editors. It is not a publication. I was using the irony of polite language for that vulgar “publication” to be sarcastic on the assumption that most people know about urbandictionary. It also occurs to me belatedly that “that publication” is nonspecific and could reasonably refer to either the publisher of this article or, as was intended, urbandictionary.
Source: misspent youth
deleted by creator
The problem is, if you’re quoting someone or something, it is considered very unprofessional to make even the slightest changes, even correcting typos in written materials. That’s what the [sic] is for, to denote that this is literally how it’s written in the source.
See my explanation in the comment chain below.
The fact it comes from urban dictionary is immaterial. It could come from a Facebook post, a presidential press conference or a YouTube comment and the rules are the same. Journalistic codes of conduct don’t discriminate between sources when it comes to the handling of quotes.
The fact is, when you’re quoting something, anything, taking such liberties with the quote, even for seemingly innocuous/well-intentioned reasons, is a professional minefield no journalistic publication is going to want to touch.
Aside from the fact that this is a verbatim quote, British journalism has a rich history of hilarious typos. Spell checker would not have yielded moments like this - https://metro.co.uk/2015/04/06/that-awkward-moment-the-bbc-calls-large-hadron-collider-hardon-collider-5136981/