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

[eschwartz]

You're right, I'm sorry. Catlady never said things like:

Originally Posted by Catlady

Exactly. This is what concerns me. And too many people have just been pooh-poohing this legitimate concern as paranoia.

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.

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?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But they aren't - books get edited all the time, and frequently because word usages change. Eg, look at the edition of Josephine Tey's book "The Man in the Queue" in the MR library and you'll find a chapter in it called "The Levantine". Most modern editions have that wording. But look at the book as it was originally published and you'll find that the chapter is called "The Dago", and no, the modern editions don't tell you it's been changed.

Publishers constantly change books, and they don't tell the reader. That's the way the world is.

The important part is how pbook editions are clearly sacrosanct and an authoritative source -- I guess because they're paper.

Even though they apparently aren't.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But they aren't - books get edited all the time, and frequently because word usages change. Eg, look at the edition of Josephine Tey's book "The Man in the Queue" in the MR library and you'll find a chapter in it called "The Levantine". Most modern editions have that wording. But look at the book as it was originally published and you'll find that the chapter is called "The Dago", and no, the modern editions don't tell you it's been changed.

Publishers constantly change books, and they don't tell the reader. That's the way the world is.

The point being is if the person releasing the book makes the changes or know that that edition has changes made it it, post what these changes are so we can decide if we want it or not. Seem local and fair to me.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

The important part is how pbook editions are clearly sacrosanct and an authoritative source -- I guess because they're paper.

Even though they apparently aren't.

If you have a version of a pBook that you know is authoritative, there's no reason not to use it to double check the eBook if that's what you want to do.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Publishers constantly change books, and they don't tell the reader. That's the way the world is.

These are two different things. Those with a financial stake in a copyrighted work can do as they please with it to maximize their return. People who create digital books as a labor of love shouldn't rewrite text and pass it off as original.

And nobody's expecting Herculean efforts here. Get a reasonable copy of the text and go with it.

C'mon, Harry, you don't really think it's ok to change a text.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not at all favourably, I'm afraid. I want to read what the author originally wrote, not what a later "editor" has changed at a whim. Sorry, Alex - your library upload is appreciated, but speaking personally I'm not at all in favour of this type of arbitrary editing.

That's all Catlady has been saying, too.

[jgaiser]

First.... Thank you to all the editors who give of their time to provide the ebooks we get for free here on MR. I for one am very grateful.

Secondly, to those who are concerned about change in books *here* on MR. Talk to the editors. Each release is in fact a thread you can comment on.

Thirdly, if you are *really* that worried about what is provided, accept HarryT's invitation to proofread books you are interested in here. For my part, I'm a contributor on Distributed Proofreaders. That system is not perfect, but I believe it's an honest attempt to do the right thing.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you care enough to put in some effort and do something about it, because you can easily do so if you really do care.

The overwhelming majority of the books in the MR library have not been proof-read. What you - or anyone else - can do is to pick a book, go out and buy (or borrow from the library) a reputable printed edition of that book, and proof-read the ebook by comparing it comma by comma, word by word, line by line, against the printed text. Make a list of all the errors, and send them to the person who created the ebook.

It's easy to complain. Let's see if you're serious about doing something about it. If every regular MR member proof-read just one ebook a year, we'd quickly have the best ebook library in the world.

How can you do that if the edition the text is intended to be is not given?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by issybird

This seems eminently reasonable to me. The words that the author wrote should be sacrosanct.

No that is not the goal. The goal is that either the ebook version corresponds to a specific paper edition or the ebook version is published as a new edition.

Since different edition and translations of books can vary in quality (and it is usually known) I really need to now what edition the ebook corresponds to.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But they aren't - books get edited all the time, and frequently because word usages change. Eg, look at the edition of Josephine Tey's book "The Man in the Queue" in the MR library and you'll find a chapter in it called "The Levantine". Most modern editions have that wording. But look at the book as it was originally published and you'll find that the chapter is called "The Dago", and no, the modern editions don't tell you it's been changed.

Publishers constantly change books, and they don't tell the reader. That's the way the world is.

Of course they tell the reader that there might be changes. It is told by making the book a new edition.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by issybird

These are two different things. Those with a financial stake in a copyrighted work can do as they please with it to maximize their return. People who create digital books as a labor of love shouldn't rewrite text and pass it off as original.

And nobody's expecting Herculean efforts here. Get a reasonable copy of the text and go with it.

C'mon, Harry, you don't really think it's ok to change a text.

It's not a matter of what I think is or isn't OK. It's simply the reality of the situation. Books get edited, like it or not.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

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.

I don't think it's unfair to consider the MR library "untrustworthy" on the question of textual fidelity, for the very reason that nobody's systematically checking the uploaders' work. That does boil down to "trust the uploaders," and historically that's not a very good way to establish credibility.

Notice that nowhere in that paragraph did I accuse anyone of malice. The fact is that humans are unreliable and sometimes get things wrong by accident, in addition to there being some people who change things deliberately. Motive isn't a factor in establishing trust, except to the extent that evidence of untrustworthy behavior actively destroys trust. The same goes for the amount of time spent; forgers often spend many hours getting something just right.

It seems that the MR library, in its current form, is a mass of contributed ebooks that have not been checked by anyone other than the original poster. That makes the library untrustworthy, like it or not. Rather than blaming the person who called attention to the problem, or those who agree that this is a problem, shouldn't the focus be on the problem itself and how to remedy it?

[eschwartz]

Ah, but I agree that MR is not trustworthy as definitive truth. I am simply in no delusion about the inherent trustworthiness of anywhere else, nor do I care, for my needs. And if anyone truly wants a definitive authority, they'd better do it themselves, because everything else will be suspect to one degree or another.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

Rather than blaming the person who called attention to the problem, or those who agree that this is a problem, shouldn't the focus be on the problem itself and how to remedy it?

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.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And if anyone truly wants a definitive authority, they'd better do it themselves, because everything else will be suspect to one degree or another.

There is a middle ground between "do it myself" and "rely on random individuals." Something as simple as a note that third party X has downloaded and proofread book Y, and any errors found were fixed, goes a long way.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

There is a middle ground between "do it myself" and "rely on random individuals." Something as simple as a note that third party X has downloaded and proofread book Y, and any errors found were fixed, goes a long way.

Right... the problem with that is, like I said "suspect to one degree or another", or like DiapDealer just explained in a slightly more elaborate fashion.