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

[Billi]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Fine, go fix AlexBell's change from "gay" to "light-hearted."

Maybe I am too dumb to understand it but why are you so intent on this upload by AlexBell?

If you would really be interested in reading The Queen of Hearts by Wilkie Collins, why don't you just take Patricia's version and ignore Alex's?

I would understand it if Alex's version were the only one we have but as we have two I really can't see your point. What is the problem in having an original and a modernised version? Could you please explain it?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I think we've all got the idea by now that you can't be bothered to lift a finger to help.

And we've all got the idea by now how sad and disappointed it makes you. So give it a rest. Please.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Dear Catlady, if - as you have declared in dozens of posts here - the MR library is totally not up to your standards, and you think the uploaders don't care enough about the quality of their uploads: why do you waste your time here at all? You can see that we want to keep on providing subpar ebooks, so why don't you find a place that meets your standards and leave us incorrigible hacks alone? Please?

I don't use the MR library, as I've stated, because it is indeed a waste of time to read material that is suspect.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Billi

Maybe I am too dumb to understand it but why are you so intent on this upload by AlexBell?

If you would really be interested in reading The Queen of Hearts by Wilkie Collins, why don't you just take Patricia's version and ignore Alex's?

I would understand it if Alex's version were the only one we have but as we have two I really can't see your point. What is the problem in having an original and a modernised version? Could you please explain it?

The problem is that it is not clearly described that the text is modernised in that way. So a reader can be fooled to read the wrong version (from the readers perspective). If the changes are clearly described there is no problem.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Billi

Maybe I am too dumb to understand it but why are you so intent on this upload by AlexBell?

If you would really be interested in reading The Queen of Hearts by Wilkie Collins, why don't you just take Patricia's version and ignore Alex's?

I would understand it if Alex's version were the only one we have but as we have two I really can't see your point. What is the problem in having an original and a modernised version? Could you please explain it?

Because he specifically reported the change he made in this thread, but not in the upload itself or in the post accompanying the upload. He said there only that he'd modernized spelling and punctuation. Changing "gay" to "light-hearted" is a substantive change to the text.

When there are multiple uploads of the same material, how in the world is someone supposed to know which one has changes to text like this if the uploader doesn't indicate what he or she has done?

[jandrew]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Because he specifically reported the change he made in this thread, but not in the upload itself or in the post accompanying the upload. He said there only that he'd modernized spelling and punctuation. Changing "gay" to "light-hearted" is a substantive change to the text.

When there are multiple uploads of the same material, how in the world is someone supposed to know which one has changes to text like this if the uploader doesn't indicate what he or she has done?

Well, his book upload thread now contains a post with a link to his disclosure about the changes he made. Problem solved?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Catlady

You said corrections. You did not say a new version of the entire file.

How else would a correction be added rather than uploading a new file?

Perhaps we should use patch? Only, I don't see why you think anyone should be a computer programmer before they can read the updated version.

It would seem that that is even more unfriendly towards the reader.

---

Thank you jandrew and sun surfer for being so kind as to offer actual, constructive solutions.

[theinfamousj]

I think that Catlady does not understand how a correction to a digital file is made: namely as a new upload. Whatever username is on the upload, it is a new file, regardless.

Also, who cares what username is on the upload post? Aside from, "I put in the effort" Street cred, the author wrote the book and that is the name that should be associated with the book. The book is in the public domain, so anyone can do with it what he or she wants, including sell it if you can find a sucker to buy.

So long as versioning is kept up - which shows that version 11 is more error-free than version 5 - the name of the uploader matters only to his or her ego. (Which is not to say that there isn't thanks due the uploader.)

If I ever happen upon a public domain book not yet in the library and upload a self-created ebook of it and someone downloads the file, changes a few errors here and there, and uploads it as a newer version, I would LOVE IT! I would be the first to thank them for their time and effort on the project. I don't have my ego wrapped up in being the only source of a format of a book.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

How else would a correction be added rather than upploading a new file?

Do you not understand the difference between OVERWRITING an existing file and ADDING a new file?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by jandrew

Well, his book upload thread now contains a post with a link to his disclosure about the changes he made. Problem solved?

--No.--

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Do you not understand the difference between OVERWRITING an existing file and ADDING a new file?

Yes I do. They are the same exact thing, the difference is in one case you also delete the old one.

Also, that has nothing to do with what you said before, so I am forced to conclude that this comment was just nitpicking.

Originally Posted by Catlady

--No.--

Then what would solve it?

There is now a warning that it has been bowdlerized, so the only further step would be to have the moderators delete the thread for violating the guidelines that don't exist for offenses that only offend a small subset of the membership. Seems rather draconian.

What MobileRead content will fall under the censors next?

[Salgueiros]

Bloody hell! Where did this cat lady came from? This thread looks like the kindergarten version of Twilight Zone. Get a book!

[jandrew]

Originally Posted by Catlady

--No.--

So, your objection isn't really about having the information about any changes readily available? And it doesn't seem be about whether other versions you deem more correct are available. Your only satisfactory remedy would be to have this particular version overwritten with a version you approve of or removed from the library entirely?

[shalym]

[quote of deleted post removed]
I'm pretty sure that suggestions about changes to the forum administration (which includes changing rules and guidelines) are much more likely to be listened to if they are made in a polite way in the correct part of the forum, rather than whining and complaining about it in the general discussions area. The user sun surfer has done this now, and if you are really truly interested in getting these guidelines implemented, you may get a better response from the admins from posting in that thread to show support. I notice that the ones who are whining about this the most haven't bothered to go do this, even though sun surfer posted a direct link to the new thread.

I guess it's easier and more fun to just whine about it?

Shari

[meeera]

Originally Posted by shalym

I'm pretty sure that suggestions about changes to the forum administration (which includes changing rules and guidelines) are much more likely to be listened to if they are made in a polite way in the correct part of the forum

It can also, on the other hand, be worth hashing out suggestions, especially in thorny/contentious areas, before making them formally. Both approaches can work.