Dangerously e-books: How do I know if my ebooks have been altered?

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by issybird

I think Catlady's position and attitude are being grossly misrepresented. It seems to me that all she's saying, and she can correct me if I'm wrong, is that if people change the text of a book they upload they should note it.

This seems eminently reasonable to me. The words that the author wrote should be sacrosanct. Surely those who love books enough to go to the very great effort of uploading them are not in favor of unnoted bowdlerization! I don't see any sense of entitlement, or that people should do things her way, or any of the rest of it. Indeed, I think she's been made a straw man, since the real issue as I see it should be uploaders who emend texts and taint the pristine works by association. I also don't think it would be a big deal to have a guideline that said something to the effect that, "any changes in the text should be noted" and that would protect the uploaders as well as the readers.

I really do assume everyone's essentially on the same side! I don't understand the acrimony, the shouting, the personal criticisms, or any of the rest of it.

I very much appreciate your effort to point out the common ground; but if you read my posts you will see that all I've been doing since this thread rose from the dead is pointing out that agreement on this was reached long ago (an agreement, mind you, that doesn't ignore the difficulties which may arise in trying to establish an authoritative text, difficulties which are far from trivial, as Harry has pointed out several times.)

Catlady has been consistently ignoring that part of my posts and insinuating again and again and again that uploaders here will just upload any old text without trying to safeguard the quality. It is not misrepresenting her position to see this as an insult.

ETA: How about you? Are you going to join the proofreaders' squad?

[Catlady]

I would like to point out that since AlexBell admitted to changing "gay" to "light-hearted" in his upload and was roundly criticized for doing so, he has not changed the text back to the original wording. It's still sitting in the MR library. Nor has he changed the accompanying post, in which he tells what his source material was; he says only that he fixed spelling and updated punctuation.

A volunteer proofreader doesn't do any good if the uploader deliberately made a change to text.

Doubleshuffle, I marvel at your ability to distort and misrepresent. Have you considered a career in politics?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And if MR were to do all that, you wouldn't have any more reservations concerning the trustworthyness of their public domain library?

I'm truly not trying to be a smartass, I'm just trying to ascertain whether there's anything they could do to make this situation "right" in your mind. Not a good start, not a step in the right direction, but an honest to goodness solution to the problem. Is there one in your mind? If the problem is indeed inherent, as you say, in digital books, then why the cry for something to be done?

What about a disclaimer?

Of course there is nothing that is an absolute guarantee, short of uploads being careful reviewed and vetted, and that's asking a lot. I already indicated basic guidelines, because they would possibly help people be aware. There are guidelines about copyright--those get followed.

Why do you think it has to be all or nothing? What's so wrong about there being some rules that people are asked to follow when they upload, even if they can't ensure complete accuracy? We have rules about posting in the forums, don't we? Why not some general rules for uploads?

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Doubleshuffle, I marvel at your ability to distort and misrepresent. Have you considered a career in politics?

Go fly a cat.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I would like to point out that since AlexBell admitted to changing "gay" to "light-hearted" in his upload and was roundly criticized for doing so, he has not changed the text back to the original wording. It's still sitting in the MR library. Nor has he changed the accompanying post, in which he tells what his source material was; he says only that he fixed spelling and updated punctuation.

I just checked, and there is no file to download in Alex's post for The Queen of Hearts. He must have removed it. And his post was last edited on April 8th, so it has been gone from the MR library for over three months it seems. It's fun being taken to task for carelessness by someone who doesn't even bother to check her facts before posting.

ETA: Seeing that there's still a mobi version in the library, I retract my statement that Catlady hasn't checked her facts.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

I just checked, and there is no file to download in Alex's post for The Queen of Hearts. He must have removed it. And his post was last edited on April 8th, so when you made this post it most certainly hadn't been "sitting in the MR library" for over three months. A bit of fact-checking would have been in order, don't you think?

To be fair, there is still a MOBI available here: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=232462

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

To be fair, there is still a MOBI available here: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=232462

Ah, I always forget those... He seriously should have done something about that for sure. So sorry to Catlady for claiming you didn't check your facts.

[doubleshuffle]

I've just asked for clarification in Alex's post - something others who care for the integrity of the text could also have done.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's just it though. It can't be remedied. Not without vast numbers of checkers, proofers, and vetters checking, proofing, and vetting for vast amounts of volunteered hours. And who do you trust to do the checking, proofing, and vetting that would be necessary?

Posted guidelines would be nice, but would in all likelihood be no real deterrent/solution.

And besides ... whether or not the vast majority of MR users agree that they'd prefer an author's original words be sacrosanct (and I include myself in the group that does), the very definition of Public Domain means that they no longer are. They can be quietly changed, altered and used will-nilly. And even though we'd like to be notified of any and all changes to the original, we're not even really entitled to that. Which brings us back to many people's point (myself included): If you require 100% validation that a public domain work is un-messed-around-with, stick to paper and forget about downloading ebooks from anywhere. Because all the guidelines and warnings in the world won't give you the piece of mind you're looking for.

But that is not the only alternatives. You can also strongly recommend that each book is tagged with which paper edition is should correspond to or if it is not corresponding to any specific paper edition that should be stated. Then people who care about knowing what edition they are reading can make an informed decision. And if the intention is to correspond to a specific paper edition you can proof read it if you want.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

But that is not the only alternatives. You can also strongly recommend that each book is tagged with which paper edition is should correspond to or if it is not corresponding to any specific paper edition that should be stated. Then people who care about knowing what edition they are reading can make an informed decision. And if the intention is to correspond to a specific paper edition you can proof read it if you want.

Almost all the books come from PG, and PG specifically do not match any specific paper edition.

When I proof-read against a particular paper edition, I always say what that edition is.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I would like to point out that since AlexBell admitted to changing "gay" to "light-hearted" in his upload and was roundly criticized for doing so, he has not changed the text back to the original wording. It's still sitting in the MR library.

Please, why should he??? It is his decision, he invested a lot of thought into it, he explained it but that's all, if we like it this way or not. Make your own version and share it with us.

I don't think that you can buy one single paper book by Goethe where the text is exactly as it was printed 200 years ago (I mean spelling, not wording). We still live.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I already indicated basic guidelines, because they would possibly help people be aware.

Help who be aware of what?

Why do you think it has to be all or nothing? What's so wrong about there being some rules that people are asked to follow when they upload, even if they can't ensure complete accuracy? We have rules about posting in the forums, don't we? Why not some general rules for uploads?

I don't think it has to be all or nothing. I'd be OK with MR posting some guidelines. I'm just also aware that they're under no obligation to do so. Just like I understand that my desire for the books to be accurate in every way has little to do with whether or not they actually are (or should be). It's not a trust issue with with me. It's always been caveat emptor (and yes, I know there's no buyer) in my mind. That's the way PD works. In short, I'm fully aware that my desire for accuracy doesn't represent any sort of moral imperative. Things (at MR's library) are working the way they're supposed to work. Might be hard to accept for some, but true.

[HarryT]

It is a little disappointing that none of the people who are complaining the loudest seem willing to actually put in a bit of work to help proof-read the books in our library.

[Dr. Drib]

Moderator Notice

Because we are all adults, this is a good time to post a courteous reminder:

Please feel free to disagree with a person's opinions, or dispute their facts or data, providing you do so politely. Likewise, please address your criticisms to those opinions, facts and data rather than the person. Refer to the MobileRead Guidelines, specifically the full text of the very first item. When posting, your attention to the Guidelines is required. Name calling ("troll") and insults ("obtuse") are not allowed.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Billi

Please, why should he??? It is his decision, he invested a lot of thought into it, he explained it but that's all, if we like it this way or not. Make your own version and share it with us.

I don't think that you can buy one single paper book by Goethe where the text is exactly as it was printed 200 years ago (I mean spelling, not wording). We still live.

He explained it in a forum post. He does NOT say that he made changes to text in the upload. So I'm not accused again of making things up, see here. He says:

The source text was Project Gutenberg 1917-h.htm. I have corrected typos, curled quotes, and modernised punctuation, spelling, and hyphenation using oxforddictionaries.com.

As always if you find any errors please let me know so I can correct them.

I do not understand how changing "gay" to "light-hearted" can be considered the same sort of change as "to-day" to "today," which he also said he did. The first is a deliberate and blatant alteration of the author's text. The second, while unnecessary, falls under the modernization of spelling which he states upfront.

Clearly this is not something he considered an error, and he has not changed it despite vehement objections that followed when he told the forum what he'd done.