HammerwellHammerwell@troet.cafe
Oct 25, 2026, 1:08 PM@spacelizard @pluralistic No one owns Elsevier? Wiley? Taylor & Francis?
Replies
Anthony Hortonspacelizard@aus.socialOct 25, 2026, 1:13 PM@Hammerwell Read the article.
- HammerwellHammerwell@troet.cafeOct 25, 2026, 2:28 PM
@spacelizard Thats the Thing. You set two things equal as a precondition in the discussion (The scientific literature can be viewed as an “information commons:”). However, those can be equal but not neccecarily. At least for a very big part. How big this part is, I admittedly don't know but I'd assume more than half. [A fast search says ~25% of new knowledge]. You don't use "scientific literature" again so this may not influence the conclusions it is nonetheless in the very first sentence with the most attention.
- Anthony Hortonspacelizard@aus.socialOct 25, 2026, 2:50 PM
@Hammerwell *I* didn't mention scientific literature at all, I'm not the author of the paper that I linked to.
However if you read the full paper (links on the right) you will find that it does not claim that AI is the first or only attempt to enclose the scientific commons. The academic publishing racket you brought up is specifically mentioned as an example of such an attempt. It also notes that the attempt to enclose the scientific commons with journal paywalls has not been entirely successful because it runs counter to the traditional ethos of academia and they have encountered significant pushback. The arXiv "pre-print server" that this paper is published on is a prime example. In a number of fields scientists use these servers to make most of the papers that they write available to everyone for free even if they are subsequently officially published in a paywalled journal. This is just one aspect of the open access movement in science.
- HammerwellHammerwell@troet.cafeOct 25, 2026, 3:36 PM
@spacelizard Oh, sorry. That you aren't the author I didn't read. Yes, the paywall doesn't extend to anything. Hence my bad try at an estimation of it. It is a big part of science publication though. And because of this, all of science publication can't be commons (It's owned by someone). And my little jab was merely about that part, and because it sits so prominent in front, and not about the analysis of AI impact.