You know, sometimes I have what I would consider silly worries about something that I don't trouble others with, because I don't think that they're important enough. Now, I might rethink that as my silly worries, combined with an eye-catching grammatically incorrect title, could create a 30+ pages thread with deep philosophical hand-wringing and divisions. But far be it from me to stay out of this row, so I'll jump in (with a rather long post - sorry! - to sum up my feelings on it all at once).
I think, as has been pointed out, that the large majority of us are basically on the same page regarding "editorial decision" changes to classic texts being uploaded to the MR library - we don't like it. The split seems to be from what should be done about it. Some prefer a "steady as she goes" approach; it's not that big of a deal and most of the major uploaders put a lot of time and detail into their work and things have worked fine the way they are for a long time now. Others prefer to have some new guideline or rule added advising either against arbitrary changes by the uploader to the text or at the least urging the uploader to clearly note any such changes.
Personally I'm somewhere in the middle on this. I really don't think it's that big of a deal (for the majority of uploads) and I can't be bothered to put too much concern into it, hoping for the best with any text I read. But on the other hand, Catlady does raise some valid points, and the revelation by Alex Bell did shock me I must admit. While I can't be bothered to care too much about any changes to texts that might have been made, I am one of those people who prefer to have nothing at all altered from the original text unless clearly stated, and this will make me not trust any uploads by him. I don't even like "to-day" to become "today" - I mean, what's the point? "To-day" is still just as readable and when one knows that a text has been altered to "today" instead, it makes one wonder what else might be altered in the text. And something like changing "gay" to "light-hearted" seems incredibly heavy-handed and oppressive to me. It's not only condescending, with the uploader assuming the authority to decide what would be preferable for us to read, but it's almost offensive really.
I sounded rather vehement at the end of the last paragraph, didn't I? So how can I be somewhere in the middle on this? Let me explain it by relating another experience I had. I once read an expose article on a restaurant I'd eaten at detailing some really nasty things that went on in the kitchen area, which of course led me to never eat there again. Of course it may have been an outlier, but I began to think about it awhile later, wondering, if the "leak" hadn't come about the restaurant, would I have continued to eat there and unknowingly enjoyed it? Yes, probably. But not only that, but why should I assume that this is the only one? The "leak" insinuated that bad things had happened at other restaurant kitchens they'd worked at as well, and I've read other things about restaurant kitchen horror stories at different places that I've never eaten at, so what if nasty things happening in restaurant kitchens are much more common and widespread than I might've thought?
It's enough, once you think on it for awhile and read up on it, to make one want to never eat in any restaurant again. So at some point, I gave up worrying about it, thinking life's too short and besides I like eating at restaurants. See no evil, hear no evil. As long as I didn't know about it, I decided to just put out of my mind any thoughts about what nasty things could be happening in the kitchen of whatever restaurant I'm eating at. That's not to say that there shouldn't be standards or that someone shouldn't care about those things, but that I didn't want to be the one doing it as it would take up a lot of time and worry in the caring that would also hamper my casual enjoyment. That's also not to say that I didn't take a modicum of precaution, taking the advice of friends and others or checking quick reviews perhaps, but besides that I don't actively seek out negative info about restaurants and instead live in somewhat of an "ignorance is bliss" mindset on the matter, which on most subjects I wouldn't recommend but on this particular one found desirable to alleviate constant worry about the food I'm receiving in a restaurant.
So, for me this (what I consider to be) pragmatic approach applies to the ebook upload debate. I really want perfectly unaltered e-books just like Catlady wants, but I don't want to obsess over it. Unless otherwise warned, I just have to trust that that's mostly what I'm getting and go with it.
As to Harry's and others' suggestion that we who want ebooks unaltered should go to the trouble of helping ourselves, to that I say rubbish. I understand the reasoning but it's not feasible. It'd be like saying if I'm worried about the food in the restaurant I'm eating that I should just open my own restaurant so I can eat there. That's just silly. We are allowed to be concerned about something without having to completely take over the production ourselves. I'd also like to point out that everyone has a different level of skills. Such as Harry - I just do not understand how he manages to closely proofread and format so many books for upload, and have time to read many other books besides. Do you know how long something like proofreading a book would take me? A long, long time. I am a slow reader, and I'm sure I'd be a very, very slow proofreader. It's not feasible even if I wanted to because sometimes it's hard enough for me to make enough time to read the things I want (and I always wish I had more time to read) - to proofread books would basically require me to give up any other reading to have the time for the proofreading and then still it would take me a long time to proofread only one book, not to mention the fact that I have no idea how to "format" or "make" an ebook if I were trying to upload one myself (and experience has taught me that it would take me much longer to learn how to do so than some others would have me believe). No, there are people who are good at and enjoy proofreading and uploading texts for the good of the community and good on them. Many people aren't or can't be like that, but still enjoy the ebooks, and still have the right to hope for
quality uploads, which to many mean texts not only well-formatted but also not changed.
I think the problem with some changes to the library rules is that they would be so hard to retro-actively apply. The library is already so large. To require that each book is uploaded with specific info stated or to require that each book is uploaded without changes to the text really just isn't possible. There's too many books already uploaded that would require much too much work to go through and verify (and who'd be willing to do it?) and then even if there were people willing to verify them all, many ebooks might end up being deleted and the library shrunk for possibly small errors that many readers wouldn't mind.
This only leaves one option really - the proposed "guideline" being added. I have to say that I agree with others that this is an eminently reasonable idea. Was there really enough of a problem to warrant it? Who knows. Will it really change much? Who knows. But, I think it would help to assuage some people's fears, but more importantly I think it would contribute to a culture of it being well known that it's preferable not to change texts here. Alex Bell obviously thought it was much more preferable to change texts and not only that but he had supposed that people might agree with him, which they largely didn't. We do not know who else might have thought the same as him or still think the same as him, and they might not have taken notice of this thread.
As it stands uploaders have no guideline on this and thus are left to decide for themselves what is "best" in what they do with the texts before they upload, with no incentive to necessarily even note any changes they've made. I do think a guideline would have an impact, even if it's not wholly visible, of creating the default position for the community that un-altered texts are the preferable way to go with an upload and that any changes should be clearly noted. This subtle influence can be stronger than one imagines. This would mean that any well-meaning uploader that knows the guidelines would have to deliberately decide to go against what they know is the preferred method if they decide to change something in the text, and I think most or even all of the major uploaders wouldn't want to do that, and even if they do they would most likely then clearly note their changes as the guidelines would suggest. I'm writing this on the fly, and so I know it would look very different in a final draft that anyone may make, but a guideline such as this:
Quote:
|
Mobileread strongly prefers that uploaders do not make changes to the original text and that, if possible, the edition of the text the upload is based on be noted. However, if any changes to the text are made, they should be clearly noted in the post for the upload with as much detail as possible to the types of changes made.
|
I'm not sure where this guideline be placed but perhaps somewhere prominent and where the uploader has to see it every time they upload something. If no such guideline is ever added, well, no skin off my back as the saying goes, but I do think that such a guideline would be better for the community in the long run.