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

Sat Jan 12 22:17:18 UTC 2013

On 12 January 2013 20:09, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com> wrote:

> > The commonly accepted definition of science does not include the
> information
> > Mannings and Assange released.
> thats because obviously you are refusing to acknowledge the importance
> of the socio-polical context which constrains and shapes how science
> evolves and its outcomes and impact
> I find this a shortfall of  some scientists not realising what is
> going on in the real world outside their labs  and how this
> impactstheir work

Science clearly affects and is affected by events outside of science, but
that doesn't make everything under the sun relevant to discussion of
science, or more specifically of openness within science. As far as I have
seen, the information released by Mannings & Wikileaks did not particularly
relate to science. And the openness they were practising is something quite
different from open research.

Of course, that shouldn't prevent you discussing such matters. But the
primary focus of this list is open science, and we shouldn't try to
handwave Wikileaks into that heading.

Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20130112/16295f82/attachment-0001.html>