I recently received an email from someone who was at pains to highlight inadequacies of a site I forwarded as a potential useful reference. The site, www.readprint.com offers a collection of texts which are in the public domain in a tidy format. There are many of these sites around, but this one seems to have a broader collection of authors and titles than some others so I thought it worthy of sharing.

The email was particularly scathing of the grammar on the site (which is nothing short of atrocious) and went on for several paragraphs highlighting all kinds of inadequacies. Here’s an extract (there were several paragraphs) from the email highlighting some of the problems with the biography of O’Henry displayed on the site:

O’Henry:
The writer’s name was O’Henry, not O.Henry

• “When William was three, his mother died, and he was raised by his parental (!?!) grandmother and paternal aunt.”
• “In 1894 cash was found to have gone missing (convoluted nonsense) from the First National Bank in Austin”
• “It is said, that he met one Al Jennings, and rambled in South America and Mexico on the proceeds of Jenning’s robbery.”  Was the associate named Jennings or Jenning?  Or is this another example of ignorance of the basic use of the apostrophe?  Confusion reigns supreme.
• “The story tells about two kidnappers, who make off with the young son of a prominent man.” Dumbed down, simplistic language

Nothing wrong with pointing out problems with a site you might say – particularly a site which is directed at “students, teachers, and the classic enthusiast”. Nothing except, why tell me? I merely passed the site on as a possible reference for some colleagues – the managers of the site would benefit so much more from this feedback and they provide ample links to volunteer information to them.

The email went on to say this:

The goal is always to educate, not provide poor or incorrect examples of writing.  Regular exposure to dumbed down or incorrect examples of the English language will undoubtedly reinforce poor practice and lower standards.

The nature of the web is that we find many inconsistencies, inaccuracies and incomplete work and part of being a good digital citizen is to offer correction when needed. Surowiecki’s idea of the “wisdom of crowds” appears to be the best chance we have of keeping up [and moderating] with the vast quantities of newly created/curated ideas, text, media, etc. I agree the goal is always to educate and this example offers the perfect opportunity to educate students in how to participate - how to be good, responsible digital citizens.

We can be passengers and watch mistakes on the web, or we can be active digital citizens and right wrongs that we become aware of.

Don’t be a passenger, be a Digital Citizenship Man/Woman!

NOTE: I have no affiliation with readprint.com – They (readprint.com) appear to be a front for some kind of online coupon marketing scheme which is using public domain books as a carrot to drive traffic to their site – hardly a philanthropic venture, but I don’t think this need stop good digital citizens from righting wrongs