13 votes

Science’s Pirate Queen

6 comments

  1. [2]
    ThatFanficGuy Link
    The Non-Pocket link: the article on the Verge Maybe it's me trying to defend someone like her – a rebel, out there actually doing stuff – but it seemed like maybe half of what she said and did...
    • Exemplary

    The Non-Pocket link: the article on the Verge

    Maybe it's me trying to defend someone like her – a rebel, out there actually doing stuff – but it seemed like maybe half of what she said and did with time was because of the pressure and the stress of being internationally pushed around. But then, she seems to be of her own mind, and willing to stand by it – something I respect about a person, but also something that would inevitably alienate her. Science doesn't necessarily mean open-mindedness.

    It also reminds me of something Banksy said, as illustrated by Gav, the artist behind Zen Pencils.

    The more I think about it, the more it becomes clear to me how the rules we play by – the global, societal, basic assumptions we take for granted about the way our lives are – are, at best, baseless. One of those rules is that the establishment should not be challenged. The entities we know to be true – not just to exist, but true – are not to be assaulted, or questioned. I get why: it's easier.

    But then, someone comes along with the capacity and the intellect, and says: "You know what? Fuck you. I'm not playing your game. Here's my rules. See how you fit in."

    They are inherently-polarizing people, because what for one is freedom and better living, to another is breaking the order and a threat to the way of life. You have probably heard of a couple of those, though you might not quite point at their names right now. They come along and change things – make good on their vision of how it all should operate.

    If that unsettles you enough to voice your protest, your best hope is that you move as much as she does, in ways as creative as hers or better, because otherwise you're shit out of luck: the world is going to bend. Sci-Hub may collapse tomorrow, or in a month, or in ten years – it doesn't matter. Much like Aaron Swartz, she already has place in history – and if the book is thorough-enough, it will have to mention her name.

    13 votes
    1. vakieh Link Parent
      Sci-hub started some VERY serious questions in some circles where the major players actually take their oaths of ethical behaviour deadly seriously (since the people IN those circles who don't...

      Sci-hub started some VERY serious questions in some circles where the major players actually take their oaths of ethical behaviour deadly seriously (since the people IN those circles who don't number people like Mengele among them).

      Sci-hub and Libgen have and will continue to quite literally change the world.

      4 votes
  2. Micycle_the_Bichael Link
    I thought this was a really interesting article. I know I support taking the paywall out of academia, and at the start of the article, I was a fan of Alexandra Elbakyan (didn't know who she was...

    I thought this was a really interesting article. I know I support taking the paywall out of academia, and at the start of the article, I was a fan of Alexandra Elbakyan (didn't know who she was before the article, just ideologically agreed with her at first). But it was interesting to see how as time went on I agreed with what she was doing less. I'd be interested to hear what other people think.

    3 votes
  3. [3]
    mundane_and_naive Link
    I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt and ask: what's the breakdown of this cost that could possibly make it so high? Even Open Access journals, despite their goodwill, still require...

    Publishing powerhouses like Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences have estimated its internal cost per-article to be around $3,700. Nature, meanwhile, says that each article sets it back around $30,000 to $40,000 — an unreasonable amount to expect scientists to pay if they were to go Open Access.

    I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt and ask: what's the breakdown of this cost that could possibly make it so high? Even Open Access journals, despite their goodwill, still require researchers to pay up to thousands of dollars for each publication. While it's understandable if publishers would increase the price just because they can, seems like there is still some necessity behind it.

    2 votes
    1. [2]
      loto Link Parent
      Maybe it's something to do with the actual printing costs (I assume at least some publications still have a print edition), especially the Open Access ones, which if I understand right don't/can't...

      Maybe it's something to do with the actual printing costs (I assume at least some publications still have a print edition), especially the Open Access ones, which if I understand right don't/can't collect subscription fees.

      1 vote
      1. mundane_and_naive Link Parent
        Hm, if that's the case I wonder if we can do away with physical copies entirely. I don't do much of my reading using physical papers anymore and a lot of newspapers also work fine digitally.

        Hm, if that's the case I wonder if we can do away with physical copies entirely. I don't do much of my reading using physical papers anymore and a lot of newspapers also work fine digitally.