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

Thomas Kluyver takowl at gmail.com
Sat Jan 12 19:10:32 UTC 2013


On 12 January 2013 18:50, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:

> I feel you have just repeated what I was complaining about: you do not
> want to comment on the whole of what happened to Assange because you
> don't want to get into discussion of a rape case and you don't want to
> discuss the whole of what happened to Swartz because he was depressed.
>
> Well, I know how it goes, but it's hard not to comment.
>

I'm happy to have discussions or comment on either of those things, but I
want to avoid simply portraying them as some kind of martyrs, paying the
price for what they believe. Assange might be using his fame from Wikileaks
to avoid facing real charges, which would make him a poor example to hold
up.

Swartz did suffer as a result of his actions for openness, but it would be
wrong to imply that his suicide was a direct result of that. My
understanding is that suicide rarely has a single cause.


> I was fully aware of the reaction that 'cause' generates, that's why I
> wrote it as I did.
>
> I don't believe I'm discounting serious wrongdoings by Assange. I
> realize that some people do discount the faults of people who agree
> with them.  It also very often happens that - to quote Aaron Swartz -
> "It’s always easier for people to blame the victim". [1].  This is
> what is called the "just-world hypothesis" [2], and it is very ugly
> when you see it working.
>

I don't believe you are discounting that, but I think that putting him in
this martyrs gallery would be to discount it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20130112/d2c93906/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the open-science mailing list