If you are writing an article or paper or something in, say, U.S. English and want to quote text that includes words spelled in, say, British English (e.g. flavor/flavour, defense/defence, etc.), is it protocol to spell the words as-is or is it allowed (or expected) to change them to U.S. spelling? It would seem sort of silly or petty to put a [sic] after the words. For all my English teachers focused on proper syntax and citation, this issue never seemed to come up.
If you're quoting someone directly, use their words and spelling (unless you're transcribing). Quotes should be clearly marked as such, no?
^ But in that case, I think you would use the [sic]. If it were something more official than a message board post, of course.
There's usually no interpretation problem between U.S. English and, er, English English. Americans have no problem understanding words like 'defence,' 'colour,' 'aluminium,' etc. just because they're spelled (or, as the English would say, spelt ) differently. I see quotes from older English sources complete with archaic spellings all the time, and it's not a problem. I agree that you should use it as you find it in your source and don't bother correcting any spelling inconsistencies.
If you're quoting someone writing in British English, you use the original author's spelling. [sic.] (from the Latin sicut meaning "thus" or "so") should only be used if there's an error in what you're quoting. A famous example is "eats, shoots, and leaves [sic.]."
