Reliability Of Books Over Digital Information

Posted: June 23rd, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Thinking Out Loud, Web/Tech | Tags: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

There’s something to be said for paper. And that’s coming from someone who actually hates paper – I’ve done as much as I possibly can to eliminate it from my life. (At school, I don’t use any textbooks or exercise books – everything is digital). So I’m not really talking about the fact that some people think it’s nice to read from paper instead of from a screen.

I’m talking about how paper, because it is a tangible object, has some form of inherent value. It doesn’t matter that it costs mere cents for each sheet of paper in a book. The simple fact that is is physical means it has value over the same book in digital format. And from thinking about this, I believe it means information that is physically printed may in fact be more accurate on average.

Think about the editing process of a book before it goes to print. Many people will read the text, check it for accuracy, and edit for grammar and spelling. It’s an intensive process, because no one wants to spend all of the money and time printing a book when there could be inaccurate information or a spelling mistake. And that’s also to do with how you can’t edit a book once it’s printed. It’s there forever. Because of this, people will spend much longer checking over their work. Instead, think about an e-book that someone publishes. It’s partly a mental thing – people think “Oh, I can always edit it if it’s in digital form”. And that’s true – it’s not necessarily permanent.

Because of this, information we find in digital format may on average be much less accurate. I began thinking about this the other day when comparing information in a textbook on the Spanish Civil War to information I found online regarding the same topic. There were discrepancies between the information in each source, and after researching the topic more I found that the information in the book was actually correct. A teacher at school was also talking to me about how he finds books are usually are more accurate than digital information.

I think it’s interesting to see that the whole world is moving digital, and yet there are some negatives to this. I don’t like that fact – I’m someone who strongly believes everything can be digital and the world will be a better place than it was previously. But I’ve written a lot on some of the problems that are occurring with the rise of digital information, and I keep coming back to the fact that digital information has a much lower perceived value.

It’s dangerous if in ten years all information is digital, but it’s much less accurate than it was when it was printed. We need to avoid that. And the same thing is happening with physical newspapers versus online newspapers – the physical ones are more accurate, and if a mistake is found online they’ll simply edit it. Why does this happen? Online information is free.

Because almost everything online is free, I believe it will always be less accurate because it doesn’t have the same value. Therefore, the only fix I see is if information on the Internet starts being charged for.

As an aside, I’ve actually found that magazines I’ve bought on my iPad are very accurate. And that’s because they’ve cost me money.

People will bitch and complain about organisations starting to charge for content online. But I think it’s inevitable to happen when people realize advertising revenues aren’t as profitable, and aren’t as sustainable. So at least hopefully you reading this post will recognise there are more benefits than it may appear to being charged for digital information.

  • http://twitter.com/asgard Zeb A.

    I agree with you but I am also not too worried about the future. Information in the digital space has never been taken as seriously as that of the printed version. Why? Simply because the majority of the world was still consuming their information from books. In the last two years, that’s been changing. The slow shift is happening (heck, only have to look at the Amazon Kindle eBook sales to see that) and more and more publishers are putting more emphasis on the digital version of information.
    Why isn’t it gaining better traction? It’s getting there, but not fast enough because quite frankly current mediums of consuming this information just aren’t cutting it.
    I did a 3 month long research on devices to read eBooks on and ended up settling on the Kindle. Right size, easy on my eyes, ok storage and a few other neat tricks under the hood. It won over the iPad and a couple of smartphones. But it’s STILL not good enough. It’s just too difficult to use in the sense of navigating around, notations, organisation etc.There is also the fact that most books just aren’t available in every region around the world. To get some of the tech books I need I either have to circumvent the geolocking on Amazon or go non-legit (which I prefer not to.) Most people out there would ask “Why bother? I can just order the book from Amazon.”Early days to be sure, but once these issues (and a few others) are resolved, you’ll see it really pick up.

  • http://booksonlinetoreadfree.com/?p=1958 Reliability Of Books Over Digital Information –mmoorejones : BookCourt.com

    [...] original post here: Reliability Of Books Over Digital Information –mmoorejones 0 Comment Click here to cancel reply. Name [...]

  • Taliesin1

    You are of a generation who has embraced digital. My generation loves the tech stuff but still depends on books in the physical. You are right they are more accurate. I cannot see a publisher wanting a lawsuit over dodgy information. 

    I have been experimenting with PDF format on my iPhone (got one free from Vodafone ha ha ha – yeh yeh the monthly is a bit high but hey!) and quite like it. (can’t afford an iPad or eBooks) so I see the beauty of digital reading –  especially when one is on the move, bus whatever. The back lit pages helps a lot too.

    I believe a storage facility type attitude will prevail in the idea of eBooks. We need to preserve books for generations to come – especially our classics and historical treatments. But it doesn’t explain for me why the ebook or information on the Internet is less accurate? Perhaps it’s a human thing to be blase about whatever we write on the Internet? 

    I have three publishers that I buy for works in history, politics and fiction: Penguin and it’s imprint Allen Lane (my favorite). These are excellent, accurate works beautifully presented. Viking, another imprint of Penguin and Knopf (American). Also Oxford University Press (UK). The reason these publishers are so successful is that the authors are ‘time set’ in their works meaning they have researched the oldest and the very latest information about what they are writing. Many new titles after 1999 are worth using because of archival releases and timely examination of new evidence they are exploring. Thanks to governments releasing documents; the newer technology and attitudes.

    I guess information posted on the Internet doesn’t have credibility because no one can be sure of accuracy. This is why Wikipedia is not allowed to be used at University. Still can’t figure that assumption!