You're right, I'm sorry. Catlady never said things like:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
Earlier in this thread, AlexBell revealed that he altered the word "gay" to "light-hearted" in a novel by Wilkie Collins, because gay would "almost certainly" be read as homosexual.
I admit it, I was rocked by this. All the books in the MR Library are tainted by such an admission, even though it's unjust to the other hard-working and scrupulous uploaders. While I acknowledge the time and effort, it's to no end if the books can't be trusted. Moreover, the clear implication that the uploader thinks the general reader is too stupid to understand a common English word in context is offensive.
And if that puts me in the tinfoil-hat brigade, so be it.
|
Exactly. This is what concerns me. And too many people have just been pooh-poohing this legitimate concern as paranoia. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
Which is why digital files are suspect, always, and it's not the best idea to give up on paper.
And yes, paper books can be altered, but not as secretly or easily.
I didn't trust the MR library well before that admission, because of other earlier indications of people tinkering with language.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
How about holding the uploaders to some standard of accuracy? How about not allowing uploads that have not been proofed? How about requiring uploaders to specify what kind of changes they've made?
|
And it seems you agree with her, too -- the overlap where you both seem to reject the MR library as untrustworthy, and Catlady at least thinks there should be some form of objective "truth" to establish whether a person can upload or not.
This general seeming of distrust should of course mean that every uploader by default is assumed a malicious bowdlerizer until proven otherwise, so how would a guideline protect the readers?