If the standard for posting in particular forums here is going to be set at the same level as University term papers, the PTB need to say that.
So that I can avoid them, and stick to ones that are treated like the informal social media spaces they actually are.
When I had English literature, the rule given to us was that any fact beyond the universally known should be cited using MLA format. I don’t think the syllabus spelled out what MLA stood for, though.
Point being, there are plenty of rules from college courses that don’t apply to a messageboard, and we should be leery of thinking they’re universal rules.
To claim that this is an absolute rule is just not helpful. Obviously we are not spelling out what USA or SDMB mean. We all agree that there are some acronyms that don’t need to be explained, we’re just haggling over where the line is.
I reread my post, and I didn’t see anything that indicated that I think it is supposed to be some kind of established rule. I just cited it as an example of how indicating the meaning of an acronym in written text is considered important. I just googled this, and the recommendation was the opposite; write the full name and put the acronym in parenthesis. Henceforth, use the acronym only. It also said it wasn’t necessary if the acronyms in question “are familiar to most people”. They gave two acronyms as examples of acronyms being “familiar to most people”, and I didn’t recognize either one of them. LOL
in the context of academic papers. There are plenty of rules in academic papers (e.g., don’t use contractions) that aren’t true elsewhere.
Imagine that I text my wife:
By the way (BTW), I’m stopping at the store on my way home. Need anything?
For what it’s worth (FWIW), I already got everything on our list.
You’re the best (YTB)! I love you (ILY)!
That would follow the rules from my English Lit class, but would be really fucking weird for the context of a text thread.
It’s not that I think you were proposing a universal rule; it’s that I think the rules from English Lit classes aren’t especially relevant for this conversation.
The obligation goes both ways. As the speaker/writer I should try to use words that my audience understands, or define them as I use them. As the listener/reader I learn by being exposed to unfamiliar words and abbreviations and shouldn’t get upset for not having things made simple enough for me to understand with no work required.
I am just honesty surprised that FIOA is in the frequently not already understood group for the crowd interested in politics.
I honestly don’t know what FIOA means.
Googling, it means “file input/output area”.
Ah, guadere’s law in action, or at least a corrolary.
It’s FOIA, freedom of information act.
Yes, I did.
In context MSM was obvious to me, but MSM has several meanings.
Very good post, I concur.
One of the acronyms that needs context.
Okay. Embarrassing typo in context. My bad.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are fairly frequently referenced in political discussions in general.
In the context of a scandal discussion in which information not publicly shared is a subject I imagined that the meaning of “FOIA” was understood by most and easily figured out by the few who did not. I would have had no pause in using it as a common knowledge word. Again, I seem to have been mistaken.
Yup, I was just giving you crap. 
I thought it was ironic.
But yes, I got what FOIA was in context when I first read the original thread too.
Yes.
What I’ve seen on the SDMB is posters dismissively telling people “just Google it!” when asked to clarify an acronym. They don’t seem to realize that you’re asking for clarification because not just you, but many other Dopers are also having to Google the term when it easily could have been spelled out by the poster.
If, hypothetically, I write a post that has a paragraph in French and people ask me to explain what it means or otherwise take me to task should I just respond “Google it and learn something, you lazy ass” ?
Unless it were a French-speaking forum. Context is everything.
I really don’t see the point in chipping in with examples where an explanation would obviously be necessary. It’s just as easy to cite examples (USA, SDMB) where an explanation every time would be silly.
We all ultimately agree that there’s a line somewhere dividing abbreviations that should be explained from those that should not, and where that line is will always be a judgment call based on the context of the conversation and common sense.
Why do you think you were mistaken? “FOIA” is very commonly used in journalism, and especially in political discussions. It should not need explanation in a P&E thread, especially when in a context like “reporter files FOIA request for expense reports” where its exact meaning doesn’t even matter to understanding the sentence.
Again, I think the awkward and off-putting sentence about “BFF of SHS” is likely what triggered all this.
Examples of use of “FOIA” in the media without expanding the acronym:
That is true. It’s the dividing line that is most contentious.
No you haven’t. You might have seen “that was easy to Google” or “that’s a pretty common word that Google would have solved for you”. But I haven’t EVER seen someone be as dismissive as “just Google it”.
The oddness was kind of the point, to emphasize how strange the entire story was. BFF is an acronym that has entirely eclipsed it’s original expansion and now means something totally specific and unique. It can’t be replaced with another word in any way that doesn’t significantly compromise the intent of the writing.
Her name isn’t Sanders. Referring to her as that would be as strange as referring to AOC as Cortez. Either you write out Huckabee Sanders every time or you call her Sarah or you use SHS.
A search for “Freedom of Information” returns 39 results and “Freedom of Information Act” returns 34. The concept itself is fairly niche, regardless of how you refer to it. Expanding it from the initialism to the entire phrase isn’t likely to improve comprehension substantially because either you know what it’s referring to or you have to google it anyway. I’ve seen it both ways but I wager I’ve seen it referred to as FOIA more than I’ve seen the full phrase.
Because a reasonable number of posters are claiming they are previously unfamiliar with it.
Personally I detest referring to politicians by their first names, and the tendency to more frequently do so with women politicians. This particular politician’s proper name is honestly long enough to type out that after first use initials makes sense.
If that’s the case, it’s even more important not to use it if clear communication is the goal.
“As strange as” seems an odd thing to say when she isn’t Hispanic.
Of course, the only courteous thing is to address people the way they prefer, but do you have a cite that she doesn’t like being referred to by her last name? She is called “Sanders” throughout her Wikipedia article, I’d have thought she would have asked for it to be changed if she didn’t like it. She’s called “Ms.Sanders” throughout this NY Times article, and they are careful about stuff like this.
Also called “Sanders” by the The New Yorker, which is even more obsessive about getting things like this correct.