Reminder: Access to scientific knowledge is a fundamental human right, encoded in the UN Declaration of Human Rights Paywalls from commercial publishers like SpringerNature, Elsevier, and Wiley violate these rights. Your rights. Open Access is a social justice issue.
-
-
Replying to @Protohedgehog @openscience
Yes! At the risk of being self promotional (sorry), I wrote a paper analyzing access to biomedical knowledge through a human rights lens. “Excluding the poor from accessing the biomedical literature: a rights violation that impedes global health,” at https://cdn2.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/125/2013/07/4-Yamey.pdf …
4 replies 2 retweets 10 likes -
These people aren't going to be reading the medical literature anyway. Low knowledge is a demand problem, not supply.
2 replies 0 retweets 17 likes -
Sorry, but this is plain wrong. People do want to read the medical literature. Small example: https://whoneedsaccess.org/ And you're conflating the 'lack of demand' with the right to deny access too. People should have the right to read what they want, should they choose to.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
It's not plain wrong, dude. Internet made most knowledge free, and there is no notable change in how much stuff people know in general. Demand problem, not supply problem. Normal people can't understand medical literature. Open access is not going to help them much.
2 replies 1 retweet 22 likes -
If the internet made most knowledge free, then why is around 75% of all scholarly research still behind private paywalls? And saying normal people don't understand the med lit is generally offensive (and wrong), and again not an excuse to deny them the right to access.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Wikipedia has been around for years, but general knowledge does not increase. Most scholarly works have been fairly available for years sing Scihub. Millions of nonfiction books available via libraries and Libgen for years. See the pattern? Increase supply, no change in Y.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @Protohedgehog and
No need to attack strawman. I am an
#openaccess advocate, but I don't like these bad arguments for open access as some kind of solution to public ignorance. The public is ignorant because they rather watch television than read science etc. There is nothing you can do about that.1 reply 3 retweets 14 likes -
Erm. There is no strawman, except from you here. At no point did I say it's a solution to public ignorance. You did, and then made several dubious, probably offensive, and unrelated remarks to the original tweet. Check, seriously. And carefully.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Most people don't want to read it, and they don't read it when it is made available. Making it more available will change just about nothing in public ignorance or utility of medical literature. I don't understand how much more clear it can be said. OA helps mostly academics.
-
-
Please read the paper that Gavin kindly shared earlier on in this thread before continuing to engage further with this discussion. Personally, I think your views here are among some of the most damaging from the world of academia at the moment.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Protohedgehog @KirkegaardEmil and
You have unreasonable expectations of the capability and aspirations of ordinary people. They have their own lives and just want the best yet least expensive treatments and don’t care to know the details of medicine, unless they’re curious.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.