Talk:Ebook

Picture

While it does have e-book functionality, it is not an e-book reader.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.158.215 (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 

Cleanup tag

Just... wow. Far too many headers; unclear focus; random soapboxing, advocacy, advertising. Massive amounts of work needed on basically every part of this. Chris Cunningham 08:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

TequilaCat

I have added a link to TequilaCat in the software section of external links. This is not SPAM. It is one of the most popular programs for creating E-books for Java enabled cell phones. Part of the site is in the Russian language, but it can easily be translated using Babelfish or similar. DFH 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

ReadManiac

Likewise I have added a link to another popular free program called ReadManiac for reading E-books on mobile phones. This too comes from Russia. The link is not SPAM. DFH 20:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Newton Book Reader Extension

Note that this extension is not compatible with Firefox 2.0+ DFH 20:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Flib

Interactive multi-media ebooks are primarily multimedia, and I dont think belongs here. DGG 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

E-documents

Do you have a reference for the use of this term? It's logical, but where did you see it used.? DGG 04:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Link format

It is consistent WP link style that if we make a link to the WP page for a particular product, we do not also put in the external link to the home page of the product, and the links just put in are being removed. Se WP:EL, and do not revert.

Stronger tag

I've changed this to a rewrite tag. This article lacks any real direction or style. Starting again would be a good option. Chris Cunningham 07:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external links

In addition to the policy of Wikipedia is not a directory, I want to respond to the anonymous IP's edit summary where he/she says that the list is "useful." Please see WP:NOT#INFO and WP:USEFUL.

It is acceptable to include a link to a Wikipedia article about an eBook provider, if they are notable enough. This is important because 1) it provides a process whereby the company is vetted for notability, so that we don't find we are advertising your uncle Bob's startup company; and 2) it makes it more encyclopedia-y and less spamm-y. --Jaysweet 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Lowercase tag

The following are taken from my and Mr. Cunningham's personal discussion pages:

Twice now you've removed the lowercase tag from e-book, stating that "Wikipedia is not Wiktionary". Properly naming articles is a requirement of the Manual of Style, and in particular Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Lower case first letter applies here. Please don't copy and paste old edit summaries when reverting changes. Chris Cunningham 08:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Cunningham,

Although I disagree with the LC template to begin with, I would think it would apply only to pages such as "eBay", "cPanel" and "vBulletin". A word (not a trademark) that is all lowercase and is not a proper noun (such as Christopher or Costco) would fall under the category of all other nouns such as boat or island. When written in a sentence they are lowercase but when at the beginning or in a headline or title the noun would be uppercase just as in "boat" or "island". The only example I can think of at the moment would be the Vi text editor. There is only one Vi, and I would treat it as a trademark. An infinite amount of e-books can exist and should be treated just as an infinite amount of boats can exist. -Henry W. Schmitt 19:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

, but I'd rather actually be convinced than simply be reverted with a comment which doesn't really explain the rationale. I'll take this to the talk page. Chris Cunningham 19:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not familiar with Wiktionary. Every page name can be lowercase without the use of special templates. In other words, Wiktionary page names are more case sensitive than Wikipedia. All improper nouns start with a lowercase letter. My comment was reflecting this and noting that improper nouns on Wikipedia mustn't be lowercase. Many page-edits were performed on the page in question between my two respective removals of the Lowercase template, and none of the edit-summaries mentioned the Lowercase template so I just duplicated my previous edit without consulting the discussion page, which I probably should have done. Thank you for leaving an edit-summary and bringing this matter to my attention. -Henry W. Schmitt 20:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have once again removed the {{lowercase}}. Please argue here. -Henry W. Schmitt 05:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A e-book can be used for ict reasons but personaly i think its ebook are good to use. if you ask me? i think its a lowd of bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.190.4 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Disadvantages

The last few disadvantages seem to almost make eBooks sound evil, such as: "the device is in control" and what not- In effect the user is in control either way. 68.112.254.179 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent "removed POV" edits

Copied from user talk:Netrat to get a wider response. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that while parts of your edit may be obvious improvements, too much of is as a whole is questionable for the current version to remain. For what it's worth, adding "balance" to an article by way of personal counterpoints is not considered to be "removing POV" by most editors - it generally doesn't improve article quality because now the article has two unsourced opinions in it and not one. For now, you should revert and break the edit down into its component sections before re-adding it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What exact sections do you refer as questionable? I believe I have answered all concerns few lines above. What I've added were not anyone's personal opinions, but mere indications of obvious facts. You don't challenge them, right? I havn't added words like "the most important", "the least important", "all the people agree" or "some people agrue". And what do you mean by "break the edit down into its component sections"? Netrat (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's see. "On the other hand, producing paper books is also hazardous for environment" is highly subjective; it is perfectly possible to produce a book in a sustainable manner, as was done for most of the history of the book. "This is a disadvantage for publishers, but at the same time an advantage for readers, since they don't have to pay for reading a book." that's mostly silly; criminal activity might be advantageous, but being subject to criminal activity is not really an "advantage". "For example, all fiction from XIX century or older is in public domain." This might be true, but in the absence of an electronic copy the potential reader is still obliged to obtain a copy of any book in that range, and as physical objects they are rarely free. That's most of the edit. Your comment above is mostly rhetoric rather than a rebuttal to the specific points in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Papermaking consumes great ammounts of wood and water. One e-book device allows users to read 100's and even 1000's of books. A paper equivalent of such ammont of text would use a lot of wood, electricity, water and chemicals, even if sustainable technology is used. 2) Many people do not believe that making electronic copies of content is a criminal activity. Defining this as "a criminal activity" is very biased in the core, especially when you don't mention what jurisdiction you are talking about. There's a strong opposition to current copyright laws and practice; further links have already been provided. Very, very few people ever went to jail for downloading copyrighted texts from Internet. This is an exceptional rather than common. And anyway, the advantage for readers was getting books for free, not having to deal legal side of this action. It would be silly to say that the ability to get books for free is a disadvantage for readers. 3) What do you mean "absence of an electronic copy"? They are actually present. To "obtain" a book by Mark Twain or William Shakespeare, all you need to do is open Project Gutenberg, Library of Congress, Wikisource or any other web-site that hosts public domain texts, make a couple of clicks and start reading. Netrat (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Replying point-by-point:

1. This is false equivalence. The papermaking industry existed for hundreds of years (and indeed the writing industry for thousands beforehand) without causing the kind of ecological damage required to produce one single e-reader. While it is possible to damage the environment in the production of paper books, it is not a requirement in the way that procuring heavy metals and polymers is for electronics.
   1. O RLY? Netrat (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Totally undue weight. "Many people" is just an unqualified weasel term here - the situation you're arguing is that while copyright law prohibits such acts in any juristiction which follows the Berne Convention, we should equivocate this with "many people" who are neither named nor referenced. This is not a soapbox upon which to stand while proclaiming the unjustness of copyright law.
   1. Now "Many people" is an actual link. A link to a political party with more than 37,000 members in Sweden alone. Are you arguing this is not "many people"? Netrat (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
   2. And to get straight to the point, are you arguing that being able to read a book for free is a disadvantage over having to pay for it? Netrat (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
3. What is silly is arguing that the ability for people to illegally access content is somehow an advantage. One does not claim that one of the advantages of supermarkets over traditional counter-top stores is that the poor could choose to steal food from the shelves.
4. Erm, yes, I misread this one. Conceded. However, it needed rephrased to indicate that it is still necessary to pay for books when the copyright has expired while electronic copies may be readily obtained.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantage I added

The fact reading extensively off a computer screen can cause eye strain and discomfort is, I think, obvious. Although some of the newer e-book readers are trying to rectify this, it's still an issue for people (like me) having to read extensive amounts of text -- such as Wikipedia! -- on a screen. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantage - Screen resolution of reading devices

"Screen resolution of reading devices may be lower than actual paper"
The reason: "For instance the screen resolution of Amazon Kindle is 167 ppi versus 600-2400 ppi for a typical laser printer." (reference quoted)
It seems, to me, the screen display and laser printing are based on different media and technology. Is it appropriate to conclude, as long as the resolution of the screen of readers is lower than that of printing, the e-book readeers will be inferior than books?
Would it be more appropriate to base it on how satisfied users are reading from electronic readers compare with conventional books? --North wiki (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry almost the whole advantages vs disadvantages of print vs e-books is nothing but original research

That whole section is unsourced, and a lot of the entries reek of personal opinion. Unsourced entries that are personal opinion are original research and need to be removed per Wiki standards. That whole section needs to be cleaned up. Either source EVERY statement in it, or the unsourced entries will be deleted. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for why someone thinks e-books are so great or conversely not so great. There has to be some degree of notability in an advantage or disadvantage to be included in the list.24.190.34.219 (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I must agree, it is WP:OR - and some of the statements are rather dubious ("E-book readers are more likely to be stolen than paper books."??). If there are no improvements to the section or objections, I will clean out that section in a few days (to give time to find sources). --Sander Säde 09:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the entries are dubious as well. For example, that "[f]ont size and font face can be adjusted" is not an advantage. It destroys a carefully thought out book design. May as well allow the colors in a Rembrandt painting to be adjustable and call that an advantage. (Not to mention that it is factually incorrect in many cases. The PDF format with embedded fonts protects from font substitution.) --Leokor (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There are over 2 million free books available for download as of August 2009. Where are they being downloaded from?

Were can i access free ebooks that do not contain dr, and are in an open format such as epub, and pdf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delstarinfo (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition

I would drop the phrase "Some personal computers and cell phones can also be used, especially to read documents in pdf format": all personal comoputer can be used (why 'some'?), and the reference to pdf as the preferred format for reading ebooks on smartphones is now obsolete (e-book reading software for the epub format is now available on iPhone, Android, Blueberry, Nokia...)

Which one?

Article states contradicting "facts"...

• Costs- While an e-book reader costs much more than one book, the electronic texts are generally cheaper. Moreover, a great share of books are available free of charge. For example, all fiction from before the year 1900 is in the public domain. E-books can be printed for less than the price of traditional new books using new on-demand book printers.

• Costs- The cost of an e-book reader far exceeds that of a single book, and e-books often cost the same as their print versions. Due to the high cost of the initial investment in some form of e-reader, e-books are cost prohibitive to much of the world's population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.171.63 (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The .pdb extension

The PDB disambiguation page mention this article among many matches, but this acronym appears nowhere in the article. The extension is used at least by Barnes & Noble for its e-book format. It's unclear to me if this is the same .pdb format as used by PalmOS. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Books Stacks Unlimited Needs Removal?

Listed in the timeline:

1992: Charles Stack's Book Stacks Unlimited begins selling new physical books online.

I'm having a hard time understanding what this is even doing in the timeline. It doesn't relate to eBooks at all, and from the linked wiki article, the site was just one of the early web stores (in this case for buying physical books, not eBooks). Seems like someone likely added it as self-promotion. TrackZero (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Then again, to that point, it seems strange that a note in the timeline is also listed for Amazon selling physical books online. Again, pointless to eBooks. TrackZero (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I added Book Stacks because it seemed an important follow-up to Project Gutenberg in this timeline. Amazon, Project Gutenberg and Book Stacks were major stepping stones in the digital display of fiction and non-fiction during the 20th century. Beginning such a timeline with Project Gutenberg certainly looks like the best starting point. Pepso2 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Another advantage: search functionality

The ability to search an e-book for a piece of text is a candidate advantage, in my view. But I'd rather not touch this part of the article if it's going to be rewritten. Mattmm (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I've just noticed this is mentioned under "E-Reader Attributes". Perhaps it could be given more prominence. Mattmm (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition

I've just added a definition from the “electronic book” article in the Oxford Companion to the Book, which admittedly I was one of the authors on. The original definition from the Oxford Dictionary of English is not correct, because it claims that an e-book is a "version of a printed book," which may have been true at some point, but we are now seeing born-digital books that have no print equivalent. I have left the original definition on the page noting the distinction. Egardiner0 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Egardiner0

Libraries and e-books

I am trying to add information about e-books freely available from libraries, which have been available from libraries for more than 10 years. This article talks about the history of e-books, and libraries have played a major role in their availability, with 65% of public libraries in the U.S. offer e-books.

Specific retailers are mentioned in the timeline, I feel libraries should be represented as well. Why are my edits being removed? (talk) Dczarnik (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've reverted your addition of a link to your website because it doesn't add anything of particular relevance to the article and is fundamentally promotional. WP:EL states that a linked site should "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". Why not develop your point within the body of the article, suitably referenced according to the guidelines at WP:RS and without linking to your own website? andy (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I did, but that was removed immediately too, although it doesn't appear in the history. But thank you for your reply. I will try adding again. Dczarnik (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've added a paragraph on libraries and e-books, and will continue to update. I plan to add a link to E-Book Lending Libraries (http://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/EBook_Lending_Libraries), and would like to revert the previous link that I added, which is not a link to my own website (as I am in only one of the thousands of libraries found on that site), but a link to a vast number of libraries that provide free e-books in the U.S., the UK, Australia and other countries. Another version of the link seems a bit more clear, but is branded by the Sony Reader product (http://sonysearch.overdrive.com/), which I was trying to avoid. There are no comparable links to search for libraries with netlibrary, ebrary, Tumblebooks, or others yet.

I was planning on all of this when I added that first link. I understand your point of view and the rules about trying to prevent commercial companies from highjacking Wikipedia articles. However, you might want to wait a little longer than a few minutes to revert changes, to view the full intent. Dczarnik (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed mobileread per WP:ELNO points 11 and 12. I don't think we should have an external link to any version of overdrive.com here, either. - MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

When you removed the reference to ebrary, it made the sentence about academic libraries redundant. But also, when you removed the reference to overdrive, you also took out the reference to popular fiction and non-fiction e-books becoming available in public libraries in 2002. This was a significant event, making the e-book lending model successful for public libraries. It also leaves readers with the impression that library e-books are still reference and scholarly. I ask that you please revert to the previous text. Or should I expand on why it was significant in the article? In any case, it was not meant as a gratuitous mention of specific companies. Dczarnik (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert to the previous text, at least not without a citation. If it was a significant event that should be easy enough to find. - MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well, citation found, and text has been updated. Dczarnik (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Is an ebook an electronic device or is it a file for storage in one?

Currently, the definition is “a portable electronic device used to download and read books or magazines that are in digital form.” I dont believe Ive ever known an ebook as a device. I recognize that an ebook is a file (commonly a PDF) which emulates the style of a printed/traditional book digitally.

Is the general sentiment here that an ebook is a device, or that an ebook is a file? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackRetina (talk • contribs) 11:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. To me (and to Project Gutenburg, which oughta know) an e-book is a -file-. I quote: "Project Gutenberg is the place where you can download over 33,000 free ebooks to read on your PC, iPad, Kindle, Sony Reader, iPhone, Android or other portable device." There are *many* e-book formats. They may require an e-reader (even a particular e-reader) or simply any MP3 player. They may have DRM or not. Anyway: the current definition which tops the page is incorrect (if not a lark) ... and the single cited reference is completely unuseful. Twang (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. An e-book is a file. Project Gutenburg, bookstores and libraries offer ebooks as files, although some bookstores and libraries offer ebook devices AND files. Ebook devices have their own page that redirects to ebook readers. I can also check the book that is cited in note 1, to verify that it doesn't say this. I have it on order, and will check as soon as it comes in. In any case, please feel free to change it, BlackRetina. Dczarnik (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, I checked the citation, and found the quoted text to be incorrect. I corrected it, and resolved the issue of whether an ebook is a device or file. Another interesting statement from the first paragraph from this source, was: "The e-book is a young medium and its definition is a work in progress, emerging from the history of the print book and evolving technology. In this context it is less useful to consider the book as object -- particularly as commercial object -- than to view it as cultural practice, with the e-book as one manifestation of this practice."1 Dczarnik (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Literati from Sharper Image

Deserves an entry. 75.18.165.82 (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to find an e-book on amazon that is cheaper than getting a good or better quality used one to my door

None of this concerns free e-books, of course. Go to any book. You will almost certainly find it for $.01 + $3.99 shipping on amazon from someone. These books almost always cost $5-$20 for the e-book. Clearly, this means I pay more for the e-book. Cost is no advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.52.24 (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

need to update ebook versus paperback book numbers.

According to a news release from Amazon, dated January 27, ebooks have out-paced paperback sales. Here's a link to the release:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1521090&highlight=

I've never really edited a wikipedia page before, so I'm not sure what the standard etiquette is for updates. But the point that says "Paperback book sales are still much larger than either hardcover or e-book" is now a factual error that needs remedying.