[open-science] open access perils? (#RIP @aaronscwarz)

[Thomas Kluyver]

> of course, and the opposite is also true, I mean that someone
> interested in open access to scientific
> research is also intersted in open access to full disclosure of facts
> relating to the political civil
> and military aspects of a country/world

Many people may well be interested in both, but they are separate ideals.
This is not a black and white matter - it's perfectly possible to be in
favour of open access without thinking that all knowledge everywhere must
be public.

For example, my take on the information released by Bradley Mannings is
that much (but not all) of it should have been public in the first place,
but I'm not sure Mannings was justified in breaking the laws of his country
to release it, but I don't think that the response to it was morally
justified. Evidently your assessment of it differs, but I'm not interested
in starting a debate on that. My point is that I'm here for open science,
not open everything.

On 12 January 2013 18:00, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com> wrote:

>  > That's a very big conclusion to draw from very little evidence.
>
> DIsagree. It's a simple conclusion drawn from sufficient evidence :-)


To be clear, what I described as a big conclusion was your suggestion that
the justice systems of multiple countries can be manipulated to serve
specific interests. That is certainly not a simple conclusion, and the
evidence presented is nowhere near sufficient to justify it. There is a
massive leap from 'I don't know why these rape claims weren't made before
the Wikileaks scandal' to 'the only possible explanation is powerful
sinister forces seeking retribution'. I've read conspiracy theories about
the moon landings and about 9/11 that had more evidence than that.

Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20130112/bb05417d/attachment-0001.html>