"(sic)": Honest, or editor-speak for "moron"?

[Robb]

Regarding letters to the editor in the newspapers:

I've noticed the big conservative daily north of me likes to use "(sic)" a lot, particularly when liberal writers use the wrong word, or spell something incorrectly.

Counter-intuitively, none of the freep-type letters ever have any errors or "(sic)" in them. :wtf:

Anyhow, that aside, which is better for the reader? Correcting spelling and usage to get the writer's point across more clearly, or leaving the errors so the reader can gauge the level of moronity (sic) of the writer?

[BOSSHOG]

1. I average getting about one letter a month published

and I think the paper does a great job of editing mine. They come out sounding better and much more grammatically correct, although on occasion they tone mine down. On occasion I get a little rowdy. I appreciate the editing work they do.

[BlooInBloo]

2. If you're *editing*, then correct the error. If you're writing your own piece, and *quoting*...

.... then use "".

I hate it when people do neither - 'cuz then you don't know who the idiot is.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. It is Latin for "thus" or "just like that"

It is an editorial mark which means, "I know this is incorrect, but it is a direct quote so I am not allowed to fix it. Please don't flame me."

See Wikipedia entry for sic.

[BlooInBloo]

4. lol!