Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • 3
    I don't think this is needed for human readers, they're aware of these common variations. So unless it also appeases the spell checker, it seems worthless. Commented Jun 30, 2023 at 14:41
  • 10
    I think adding [sic] in this particular situation would be arrogant and disrespectful, since the quoted author did not make a mistake, they just used a different (but equally valid) spelling standard. Commented Jun 30, 2023 at 15:44
  • @Barmar the spell checker doesn't need to be appeased at all (most of them do have some form of "Ignore" burton, though), and the [sic] is useful to ensure that some other human (e.g. an editor) doesn't try to appease the spellchecker and change the spelling. Commented Jun 30, 2023 at 16:11
  • 4
    The only reason the question even came up is because the spell checker complained. And I think a human editor would understand that we don't need [sic] here. Commented Jun 30, 2023 at 16:17