Translations of the Dao De Jing

'道[2]' did not have the meaning of 'say; tell' until the Song dynasty, which was ~1000 years ago.

Therefore, it is questionable, whether the second '道' really means 'say; tell' in the text before 2000 years.

It is useful in showing us how alien the original is.

That's probably the most common complaint we get. However I think most readers are unaware of how heavily the older works they read today have been edited over the years, not just in spelling but in grammar too, often by many different people.

For example, the original spelling of Shakespeare in 1609 looks something like this:

    From off a hill whoſe concaue wombe reworded,
    A plaintfull ſtory from a ſiſtring vale
    My ſpirrits t'attend this doble voyce accorded...
    
    Vpon her head a plattid hiue of ſtraw...[1]

How dare anyone change the spelling of the patron saint of English literature! ;) But of course most modern readers would find that pretty impenetrable, and would prefer a more modern spelling to be able to appreciate the text.

As early as 1700 people have been modernizing (for example) Shakespeare, going so far as to add apostrophes that weren't there (I remember one guy in a discussion with me on this topic lamented that modern editions removed apostrophes, when in fact they were added by editors in times past...).

Our small, entirely one-for-one spelling edits are in the same spirit. For your example, I don't think removing the apostrophe from "phone" changes the meaning of the text at all. It does remove the explicit announcement to the reader of "phone" as a contraction (though a clever reader will notice that the word "phone" occurs in the word "telephone" in this same story); but does it change the story's meaning? Or, is it more like replacing the long "ſ" in the quote above with a modern "s"? After all, removing "ſ" removes the history of our written language as a descendant of Roman cursive script, which, like the history of "phone" being a contraction, is something that someone somewhere probably would prefer to preserve!

The only difference between SE and the editors of old is that we're being upfront about it, and we give readers a chance to undo those changes using Git, if they prefer. And, ultimately, our editions don't prevent anyone from reading older editions with their preferred spelling variant preserved. Old books with old spelling and 100% faithful digital transcriptions are out there for everyone to still enjoy. We're just another option for readers who want to enjoy a timeless book without having to fight through dated spelling. :)

[1] http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/UC...

I think your "the text's relationship with the spelling" argument can certainly be applied to the Shakespeare example above, just as I stated. When viewed in that light, replacing long-S and u for v change Shakespeare's relationship with the Roman script and Roman history of his day, too. (Though those are not the only spelling changes in the example I provided.) The question becomes, does that really matter, in light of the text? Most editors throughout history seem to think "no," as evidenced by the huge amount of quiet spelling and even grammar changes editors have been slipping under our noses for centuries, without so much as a whiff of outrage.

I think, rather, in text a character's relationship with technology is part of the text, not of the spelling. A character does not know how he spelled "phone" when they're speaking dialog. The sounds out of his mouth do not include an apostrophe whether it's there in the spelling or not.

And, I think there are plenty of people who would be just as upset at using Johnson's dictionary as a cutoff for spelling. If we demand original spelling in everything we read, why is any cutoff acceptable? (Or so they would argue.) Of course, I disagree that a we need a cutoff at all, or that spelling matters in the general sense :)

(Of course, spelling can matter when the text makes a point to be old-timey; so if you note in the H.P. Lovecraft short fiction example, the "A Reminiscence of Samuel Johnson" short story retains its archaic spelling and style, because Lovecraft wrote it archaically on purpose. In fact we retain several archaic spelling styles in Lovecraft that we might otherwise modernize, because he was famous for thinking of himself as an "aged antiquarian" and wanted his prose to reflect that. This is where a careful and well-read editor matters, and those are the kinds of people we have volunteering at SE.)

Ultimately it comes down to taste, and the trust you have in the editor of the volume you're reading. This project is unintentionally making it a mission of mine to reveal to readers how much of what they've read in the past and think is "genuine," has in fact been heavily edited by many people on its journey from first printing a hundred years ago to your hands today, no different than what we're doing. SE just says so up front and gives you the option to undo.

The first chapter by Google translate:

    Road to Road, very Avenue;
    Name, name.
    The beginning of the unknown world;
    There is the mother of all things.
    Therefore, often do not want to observe its wonderful.
    Often, they want to see what they are.
    Both of these have different names.
    With the same meaning,
    Mysterious,
    The door of the public.

Baidu translate:

    The Taoism, the very way;
    The name is famous and very famous.
    The beginning of the nameless world;
    Yes, the mother of all things.
    It is often not, to view it.
    Often there is a desire to view it.
    The two are the same names.
    The same predicate of metaphysics,
    Mystery of mysteries,
    Many wonderful doors.

Hapless algorithms can only struggle with this!