3 ms·

I think the point of publishing is mass distribution. The fact that it resulted in an immutable artifact and replication is just an outcome of the available tec

I think the point of publishing is mass distribution. The fact that it resulted in an immutable artifact and replication is just an outcome of the available technology. Not to mention this happens all the time for "immutable artifacts". I bought a copy of the original "Shrek" book only to find it was massively different from the original and edited down to be more kid friendly. I'm sure there is some way to distinguish it by copyright date or ISBN number if you already have the knowledge the edit exists, but if most consumers don't know is it not basically the same result of memory-holing the original work as time goes on?

salawat 4y ago
It is not specifically because things like ISBN exist to allow us to differentiate between different publications ( instance of publishing) of the same title. Pretty much all institutional publishing is centered around cuts of a produced work getting a serial number. This mechanism by which further edits on a work happen without being tracked is a grave threat to library science/archival practice. Our very way of organizing information in a way that lets us keep our facts straight as a public is at stake. It should be obvious why this is a bad thing.