Last week, Wendalyn asked readers to weigh in on the topic of whether publishers should continue to set acronyms in small caps. Apparently, this used to be done regularly as a way of signaling to readers that a certain term was an acronym (e.g., RADAR, pronounced “ray-dahr”) as opposed to an initialism (e.g., DOD, pronounced “dee-oh-dee”).

She summarizes her question thusly:

Last week I put the question to you of whether the practice of setting acronyms in small caps to show they should be pronounced as names should be done away with. I gave two reasons for considering this step: (1) the argument that long acronyms look terrible set in full caps is undermined by the fact that some initialisms, which are set in full caps, are longer than some acronyms; and (2) readers are more likely to perceive the small caps as a mistake because they don’t know the reason for setting them that way in the first place.

In her follow-up column this week, she was kind enough to include my two cents on the topic:

• Setting acronyms is small caps is indeed done so infrequently that, to most people, it probably looks more wrong than right. Enacting the rule thus risks distracting readers, rather than helping them by providing guidance on proper pronunciation.
• Fussiness of this sort wastes time in the production cycle. It potentially distracts everyone down the line—writers, copyeditors, designers, proofreaders—from more important concerns, such as catching a spelling error or a missing period.
• This type of change assumes the reader is stupid. In other words, “oh, my poor reader will not understand how to pronounce this term unless I set it in small caps for him/her.” It’s akin to using a sans serif font for the “U” in “U turn”—as though the reader will be totally confused by the little lines on the top of a “U” in a serif font.

Wendalyn, probably wisely, did not include my final comment on this topic: acronym versus intialism? Who the h**l cares?

I know that suggesting copyeditors stop making a certain change “because no one cares” is a potentially dangerous road to go down. What lay reader, in all honesty, really cares whether we switch out a “which” for a “that,” or an “is comprised of” for an “is composed of”?

But my overall philosophy of copyediting is to keep in mind that we shouldn’t make changes just because “we’ve always done it that way.” That instead, we need to be attuned to changes in usage and be willing to change our editorial approach if we determine that a certain rule has become hopelessly passe, clunky, or pointless.

If we don’t do this, we risk being perceived as cranky old obstructionists, slowing down the editorial process and being subservient to rules for the sake of rules — rather than rules for the sake of readability.

Appears to be a group of copyeditors (or, at minimum, English language natives) who volunteer to clean up the articles posted on Wikipedia.

Will report back ASAP.

How’s that for some off-the-cuff alliteration?

In case you don’t know, blogs.com offers top ten lists of the “best” blogs on a variety of niche topics, from knitting to liberal politics to cupcakes. While you’re on the site, check out the Top 10 Blogs for Word Nerds. The author of that list references John McIntyre’s own personal blog, You Don’t Say.

I think that means the internet has collapsed in on itself and will self-destruct any time now.

I’ve found that an even bigger benefit of networking is that it helps me answer questions.

Browsing through my Rolodex (or my LinkedIn connections), I find I can answer just about any question that comes up in my workday. For example:

• I turned to architecture-writer Bethany Meisinger-Reiff recently when I needed help writing a profile on the construction of a new dental facility — a type of writing I’d never quite done before.
• I called social media buff David Bowman when I was giving a presentation on writing for the web and wanted to recommend a firm in the Dayton-Cincinnati region that specialized in search engine optimization.
• I call in one of Dragonfly’s senior writers, Jim McDermott, every time I write a marketing communications piece, like a capabilities brochure or a sales flyer. I won’t put anything in front of a client before it has Jim’s blessing. His comments inevitably make a piece stronger and help me refine my articulation of client features and customer benefits.
• I called Duane Landes at Dayton’s Exhibit Concepts recently when I was asked to write a script for a tradeshow booth. I wanted Duane’s 2 cents on how to best present information in that kind of a 2-seconds-walking-past-a-monitor-and-they’re-gone environment.
• I even have colleagues who I occasionally query about pricing. Susan Rose at Two Sisters Creative and Mary Cvetan at Cvetan Communications have been long-time helpers in this regard.

Of course, turnabout is fair play — meaning I find myself with equal frequency answering questions that come to me from colleagues in my network. And I’m free with my information. ‘Cause that’s what networking is all about.

Wanna network? Use the comments feature to ask your question or write me at sam@dragonflyeditorial.com.

TEAL is nothing but two guys, Jeff Deck and Benjamin Herson, who’ve spent the past summer traveling the United States and correcting typos on public signage. Things you see all the time, like “Bobs Donuts” instead of “Bob’s Donuts.” The duo were finally sanctioned for correcting (read: defacing) a historic sign at the Grand Canyon National Park.

I finally realized what had been bugging me about this story. The way I see things, copyeditors aren’t supposed to call attention to themselves. We’re not supposed run around, waving our arms, making a big deal out of writers’ errors. And we’re certainly not supposed to make the writers we work with feel stupid.

Instead, we’re supposed to work in the background, helping our writers express their ideas as clearly as possible. Getting rid of mistakes that might block a reader’s comprehension. Then fading into the background, and letting the writer–and his or her ideas–shine.

A copyeditor who wants to be the story, rather than craft the story, just might be in the wrong profession.