Dr. Earl R. Smith II

23 Responses to “Clean up the mess or warn the world?”

1. May 8th, 2008 at 3:15 pm e

Tim Tymchyshyn wrote:

I try to catch it before it goes out, don’t want to be considered any dumber than I already am

2. May 8th, 2008 at 3:15 pm e

Sheilah Etheridge wrote:

I will assume the responders knew their answers would be reposted elsewhere so they should have taken care to ensure it was correct. However, since posting these will also reflect on you I would suggest sending the suthors a note and asking them to correct their own spelling and grammar errors.

3. May 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pm e

Ray Miller wrote:

I would go with the edited version EVEN though I am an engineer and often spelling challenged.

4. May 8th, 2008 at 3:17 pm e

Sudarshan Balakrishnan wrote:

We should be concerned about the message rather than the spelling. Unfortunately, we might not be correct 100%. We value their reply and the time they have actually spent on sending the reply message to us. Now, if you have to send the same to someone else to read it, then correcting few spelling will not take much time with spell check. I would choose to send the message with the original content. But if I was in printing media or other kind of media where the content will be read by general public, I will make sure I will do both spell check and grammar check before I transmit it.

Dr… before sending this message, I did a spell check..

5. May 8th, 2008 at 3:18 pm e

Luigi Morelli wrote:

It depends on who is the origin, what is the content and where you plan to resend it.

6. May 8th, 2008 at 3:19 pm e

Todd Liebergen wrote:

Like much of life – it depends.

In some applications, spell check isn’t available, or isn’t available intuitively to those that are using the application. I can type directly into LinkedIn’s answer box. If I type quickly to get out an answer to the person asking a question, I might have typos and other things. If my expectation that the response is the final destination, I might not bother cleaning stuff up.

For some projects, the unedited responses are what’s most important and should be transmitted as submitted. Hearing the story of parents affected by aftercare budget cuts might best be accomplished with the hand-written, improper grammar and spelling mistakes and everything else from the original submission.

For other projects, the edited and distilled responses are what are important and the responses should be cleaned up, edited, standardized and otherwise compiled to provide the data necessary for those wanting the data. Knowing that the product was not available in a desired color might best be accomplished with one standardized answer “lack of color availability” instead of transmitting verbatim “wrong color,” “ color choices too limited,” “not enough color choices to satisfy my personality,” and whatever other individual responses might happen.

The response form may be able to take care of many of these issues with proper design. Some form of disclaimer that “responses may be edited for clarity and meaning” would allow for manipulation without having to contact respondents again.

If I had the time and knew the respondents and were interested in protecting their image, I might inquire “do you mind if I change ….?” If I had respondents that effectively conveyed key ideas in a less than professional way, I might redraft the response and inquire “do you mind if I use this response instead of yours?”

7. May 8th, 2008 at 3:21 pm e

Wilton Alston wrote:

Dr. Earl, while I see that you’ve gotten a range of replies, as is my often tendency, I see another question within your original question, a question that I would need some answer to before I’d posit a “solution” to your query.

For what purpose are you “publishing” these responses? My assumption is that you’re going to publish these responses to some other venue. Dependent upon the situation I could see myself either fixing the response misspellings or simply using the (sic) notation. The choice would depend upon the “why” about which I just asked. If the content and context is most important, and if I’m trying to get a point across, a point that the respondents are helping me provide, there is no benefit to quoting their mistakes verbatim.

In fact, it lessens the value and could conceivably embarrass them, should they read the output. It may be that they felt the “intent” of their words were more important to you than the spelling. Or they could just be honest mistakes. (I make it a habit to check my spellings, but still occasional errors get through.) I don’t like misspellings and would welcome anyone catching mine! On the other hand, the respondent might care not if you pass on their prose with spelling errors in full flower.

My general tendency is to quote prose that I’ve seen in print, i.e., in another publication, exactly as I receive it. For people I’m soliciting however, I generally want to present them in the best light, and that normally means “cleaning up” obvious (and frankly, irrelevant) errors.

8. May 8th, 2008 at 3:21 pm e

Ron Rinner wrote:

I suggest the medium of publication should be your guide. If you are publishing the information to a webpage or printing the replies in a brochure or report, I concur with the other experts who suggested using ‘(sic.)’ If you are merely forwarding an email, leave it as it is.

9. May 8th, 2008 at 3:22 pm e

Chris Richards wrote:

f you will be including the answers in your own presentation, correct the spelling, unless you are using direct quotes. In that case, use the [sic] notation as previously mentioned. That way you tell anyone reading that YOU know it’s wrong but that’s what the original source provided.

As a general rule, you should NOT modify the original statement when quoting someone else. Doing so can be considered disrespectful of the original source. In addition, your own corrections may introduce other errors which might then be attributed to the original source, and could land you in legal hot water.

10. May 8th, 2008 at 3:24 pm e

Martin Thomas wrote:

I think this is location/medium specific and a function of a change in general attitudes.

So replies in an email, on a forum like this or other form of pretty informal communication are acceptable now with errors in spelling and slack grammar or syntax.

A response that came in a letter or a report or some other more formal format should have been checked before you got it.

So if it were me…I’d correct the electronic communications but for the letters or reports etc I’c sic it to ‘em.

11. May 8th, 2008 at 3:26 pm e

Erik Fretheim wrote:

Why get so concerned about spelling anyway. Look at the Declaration of Independence. Independence itself is spelled four different ways. Did it make the document any less effective?

12. May 8th, 2008 at 3:29 pm e

Andrew W Morse wrote:

Language is evolutionary. The increasing global ubiquity of the English language is primarily due to this. English has absorbed words, phrases and grammar from every other language in which has been in contact.

It is also constantly changing. We aren’t stuck in a time warp. It’s a continuum.

Boomers and older generations may be righteously indignant about ‘proper’ spelling and grammar, but (despite my own inclinations), that is a redundant concept.

e.g. Young people use the word “fun” as a noun. “That was so fun.”

Common usage is what becomes the norm.

Texting is as certainly reducing the formality of language, as the thumb is replacing the index finger as the most dexterous of young people’s digits.

13. May 8th, 2008 at 3:31 pm e

Mary Lascelles wrote:

I wonder if this is a losing battle. Kids are constantly abbreviating everything in their text messaging and this form of communication is picking up rather than dwindling. I am a nut for spelling correctly (and am shocked at how often I blow it in my answers here) and I am also a nut about how words are put together in a sentence. I hate to say it…fewer people all the time are less concerned about spelling and grammar in this day and age.

If it was me? I might use the word “sic” as mentioned so that at least I’m letting YOU know that this is a typo.

14. May 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm e

Bill Nigh wrote:

Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I consider everything I write to be a reflection on me, so I devote appropriate care to spell check.

You could always do the (sic) annotation, which kind of says “It’s not my error, buddy, this is how it came in”.

15. May 8th, 2008 at 3:35 pm e

Steve Stokes wrote:

Time was the practice was to faithfully reproduce the original spelling, identifying any misspellings with the [sic] indicator after it. This communicated that this misspelling was not yours, but the original authors.

16. May 8th, 2008 at 3:36 pm e

Carl Jablonski wrote:

If you are representing that you are transmitting exact quotes verbatim, then follow any misspelled words or ungrammatical phrases with [sic]. [sic] is Latin for ‘thus’ and is meant to indicate an error in the source vs. a transcription error.

Alternatively, you can contact the originator of the quote and request permission to correct the error. But given the prevalance of spelling errors in our society (particulary in the online world), such errors actually are likely to add credibility to the quotes, so I’d just use [sic].

17. May 8th, 2008 at 8:38 pm e

Linda Clement wrote:

Depends on whether I want to flatter or humiliate the person who sent it to me, I suppose…

The problem with spell checkers is that they aren’t context-based (and the ones that are use such horribly simplistic grammars as to be of no real use to a complex writer), so often correct spelling of the wrong word is the problem. And, like many other reply systems and stripped out word processors… many, many of them have no speller, much less ‘on the fly’ checkers. A great many misspellings are actually typos. The writer knows how to spell the word, just fumbled the fingering.

If I were quoting someone, especially if I wanted to ever be allowed to quote them again, I’d re-spell things correctly, so as not to embarrass them. If I were quoting someone I was feeling I would be antagonizing anyhow (the midst of a debate, etc.) I’d leave it, and might even point it out.

18. May 8th, 2008 at 8:39 pm e

Bob Kerstetter wrote:

If you are collecting information and redistributing it for business purposes, you should say you edited the content for grammar and spelling consistency. If you were a newspaper reporter or a political information source, you would leave in the grammar and spelling errors. But don’t do this to your business associates. Using [sic] would embarrass your friends and associates.

Now about spelling checkers. They are useful, but often leave you with correctly spelled words out of context. Beyond spell check is computer-assisted proofreading. On Mac OS X, you select the text you want to proofread, choose the Speak Text service, and read along as the machine reads to you. I suppose Windows has some similar system-wide function.

19. May 9th, 2008 at 9:21 am e

David Lee wrote:

I believe people should make the effort (it is also part of good manners) to spell correctly. It also helps your credibility. When writing in a second language your grammar may be suspect, but spell checker should at least give you correct spellings – even if it is of the wrong word sometimes.

I am curious though. I would write in UK English. Others may write in US English. Would you consider UK English wrong? Would you feel the need to use ’sic’ (which is my preferred way of quoting errors)?

20. May 9th, 2008 at 9:23 am e

Dave Sag wrote:

I am something of a spelling nazi. This was drummed into me when I used to own a newspaper and I had an extremely persnickety editor. Depending on the signal to noise ration I’d either:
a) (>3 errors) send it back to be fixed
b) (<=3 errors) use the trusty [sic]
or c) just fix it my damn self. Option c only comes up if the issue is time critical however.

I do not support the idea, as Andrew Morse has suggested, that just because kids are too damn lazy to spell we should allow the language itself to mutate wildly. Yes some linguistic mutation is inevitable, however I’d be wary of letting children take the lead there.

21. May 9th, 2008 at 2:17 pm e

David Willson wrote:

It’s a Web world, and I believe you have to consider efficiency.

Using the old world approach of adding [sic] only exacerbates the negatives by highlighting the spelling error. It actually comes across as being kind of catty in a blog or e-mail newsletter.

But then going over the spelling with each respondent in advance would take way too much of your time. My approach would be to hammer out your piece the way you think it works best and then send it out to everyone who was included, asking them if they object to your editing. That way, you only do one round of e-mail and everyone’s response is in a single e-mail thread. You can then chose to easily eliminate or refine based on return comments, and you’re done.

22. May 9th, 2008 at 2:18 pm e

James Parsons wrote:

If I was sending on an email from someone else and could easily correct included text to delete a typo or other error, I usually do. Yes, you can put a [sic] which seems more likely to be saying, “hey, you idiot, let me post a spotlight on your error so no one misses it.” In some situations like court reporters, who are under legal obligation to correctly render the testimony or text, then they must do this. However, for those of us others, do we really think that spelling mistakes will be the end of the world as we know it?

I have often found that INTJ types (for you Myers-Briggs followers) are the type very quick to not just point out the mistakes, but call into question the ability to even believe anything the other person says. “If you care so little about those type of errors, then how can I trust that you are accurate with the content?” While I think this can be true in some circumstances, I think the concern over those type errors often are at the expense of the content. Hum, would we have discounted Einstein if he had a typo or two? Wonder if Eisenhower was certain to never have a typo before he engineered D-Day, since for all we know the Nazis might have won that battle if he had a typo in the commands!

While I think it is wise and prudent to spell check, proofread and try to diminish any errors in written text, and probably we do take email and modern communication TOOO lightly, but I think we have more pressing problems in the world to right off the whole sector of bad spellers and grammar-challenged individuals!

23. May 9th, 2008 at 2:19 pm e

Arpana Rawat wrote:

I would correct it if the mis-spelling converts to a word that shouldn’t be published or changes the meaning completely. Otherwise I’d let it be, people can run spell check in their heads…lets leverage the power of human mind!