[allturtles]

> Sometimes a book is completely accurate at the time of publication, but becomes factually inaccurate over time, giving the wrong dates for the beginning of daylight saving time or an incorrect planetary status for Pluto.

> Should we fix these factual errors? Do we need the author’s input? What if the author is dead, the agent is retired, and the editor has left the company? Should we fix them silently or with some kind of editorial note?

I think it's bizarre to call the "factual errors" at all. Would you alter a book from 1958 that "incorrectly" refers to Eisenhower as the current U.S. President? Such "fixes" would be a defacement of the historical record, flattening all of time into a perpetual now.

[NeoTar]

It depends on the book.

If it is a novel, then clearly not. A fact-book, that lists the current heads-of-state of all world nations, then possibly yes.

It's ultimately a decision for the author/publisher for each book. Is this a living text that should be kept up-to-date, or a historical record - after all, a book which lists all of the heads-of-state in 1958 is also valuable for different contexts.

Perhaps more importantly - if a book says something dangerous - like a cook-book saying "add a few flakes of cyanide for flavour" is that grounds for an update, or editors note in an otherwise historical record text?

[allturtles]

> A fact-book, that lists the current heads-of-state of all world nations, then possibly yes.

If you want to sell an up-to-date, 2024 factbook, you should commission one. Providing up-to-date fact books is not a function that a back catalog can or should serve. You shouldn't take a 1950s fact book and try to make some ham-handed edits to it and sell it as if it's the same book.

> if a book says something dangerous - like a cook-book saying "add a few flakes of cyanide for flavour" is that grounds for an update, or editors note in an otherwise historical record text?

If a publisher feels that issuing a particular book in ebook form would be injurious to the public, than they are certainly within their rights to not issue it. Or to add an editorial note "This book is for historical interest only, don't try to use the recipes, because for some reason the author was trying to kill all their readers." Again there are a zillion cookbooks and it's not hard to get someone to write a new one.

[GJim]

> A fact-book, that lists the current heads-of-state of all world nations, then possibly yes.

It's a book, not a web page!

I have old astronomy books that indicate the visual appearance of Mars changes due to seasonal vegetation! This was obviously updated in later editions; the old edition remains as an important historical record of what we once thought.

> if a book says something dangerous

Old editions of the 'Home Doctor' recommended using petrol to treat headlice. Granted this is probably more dangerous than the advice given by some modern heath guru's diet books.

[ewoodrich]

> I have old astronomy books that indicate the visual appearance of Mars changes due to seasonal vegetation!

Well that's fascinating, do you happen to have an example of such a textbook that could be found online?

[NeoTar]

> It's a book, not a web page!

That's a distinction you are making - that books cannot or should not be updated, whilst web pages can/should be. It's no longer intrinsic to the nature of a book as a digital text.

Perhaps a list of heads-of-state is a silly example to use, but a text-book may be a better example - in a digital world it may be a reasonable expectation that a text-book would be 'correct', and so receiving updates would be appropriate. Or a particle physics data-sheet, where an updated value for the mass of a particle could be included.

Of course this should be consensual - "The publisher has provided an update to this text. Please accept, reject or review the changes", and it would be great if e-books and readers had a mechanism to scroll back and forward through editions (but perhaps that is a pipe-dream).

> I have old astronomy books that indicate the visual appearance of Mars changes due to seasonal vegetation! This was obviously updated in later editions; the old edition remains as an important historical record of what we once thought.

That's pretty much what I said in my comment. Sometimes the historical context is important, valuable or interesting.

[cxr]

> it may be a reasonable expectation that a text-book would be 'correct', and so receiving updates would be appropriate[...] Of course this should be consensual

It is implicitly consensual—when the consumer chooses to buy/download the newest edition. Don't try to "change" what's an an ebook, though. (Not that it's even possible.) Make new editions available if you want and allow the reader to decide whether to go for them. Otherwise, it is not consensual.