I'm seeing two tendencies here. Some people want a disciplined, organized collection, with one/a few master formats, better metadata and error correction. Some people want PG to follow Michael Hart's dream of big collection, no rules, everything is welcome, do your own thing. As a researcher and former academic, I subscribe wholeheartedly to the former vision. I can't but see the latter camp as something like many self-publishers: people who want THEIR book released THEIR way, with no gatekeepers barring entry. But perhaps PG could accommodate both camps by distinguishing between PG-standard texts (generated from a master format, corrected and re-generated as necessary) and PG-alternative texts (hand-tweaked for particular e-readers, less popular formats, older versions, etc.) Search results could generate standard texts on top, alternative texts in separate category. Everything to have release dates, so that users could see which were the earlier versions and how recently the text had been corrected or updated. Users would have a way to judge the reliability of the text. If volunteers who submit alternative texts want to do error correction themselves, keeping their version in sync with the standard text, fine. But I don't think that PG should be stuck with that role. It would be enough work just to keep the standard texts updated. There would have to be SOME rules for the alternative texts, but they could be much less stringent than the rules for the standard texts. Right now, many of PG's texts would only qualify as alternative texts. But that would be OK. They would be placeholders, so that users could read something while standard texts were being prepared. -- Karen Lofstrom