Go ahead and proofread it. Something is going to have to be done about those words such as safe, unsafe and so forth. Here is how this got started again. A lot of volunteers were upset when publisher quality books started replacing their books that they had worked on as volunteers. That is, when a publisher contributes a book part of the agreement that they sign is that the copy that they contribute will be the only copy on Bookshare. That means that if a book has been prepared and contributed by volunteers it will be replaced. It was suggested that for volunteers to get upset about this was equivalent to volunteers at a homeless shelter getting upset if the residents at the homeless shelter got homes, but they got upset about it anyway. This all got lists of so-called safe and unsafe publishers to be compiled and phrases like do not use started being thrown about. Now whenever a new volunteer comes along and sees terminology like that it is assumed that there is some kind of fast rule about books from some publishers being absolutely forbidden to volunteers and questions with that assumption behind them start being asked. The simple fact is that if you work on a book published by one of the unsafe or do not use publishers it could be replaced. If that does not bother you then go ahead and use it anyway. Take note that if a publisher has signed the agreement with Bookshare that allows them to donate books they get to choose which ones they donate and they may not donate all of them and they may not even have older ones in electronic format to be donated. Also, if a book is published by a so-called safe publisher it is entirely possible that someday in the future that publisher may sign up too and so the book might still be replaced. Now, I am not sure what terminology should be used, but saying that a publisher is one that is labeled as do not use strikes me as the wrong way to put it. I suppose that anywhere such phraseology or terminology is used it could be substituted with the kind of explanation I just gave, but that would be rather unwieldy. "For right now, though, just be aware that if a book is not already in the collection or on one of the lists of books that are being worked on then you can submit it as long as it has a copyright page and a title page and is not a book of plays. Be also aware that if a publisher donates the same book then your submission is likely to be removed. If it is removed, though, at least it will be available for the print impaired until that time thanks to your volunteer efforts. By the way, if your book is replaced you will not forfeit any credits you earned for it either.
On 1/2/2013 4:04 PM, Jean McDonald wrote:
Happy New Year, everyone!I recently checked out a book for proofreading. (I now realize I should have done the recommended searches _first_.) The book I checked out was published by Doubleday, a division of Random House. In looking at the list of publishers in the Guidelines on Publishers, I don't see Doubleday but Random House has the notation "don't use." Is this a book I should *_not _*proofread? Also, if I shouldn't proof it, should I click on "reject" or "check in?"Any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you! Jean
