Live data from Hacker News

Where Sci-Hub Is

whereisscihub.now.sh

41–50 of 185 posts

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#43

I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. Research papers through sci-hub only helps to make knowledge easily accessible. Humanity's progress depends on people who shared their knowledge, not by people who use it as a tool to rule and hold on to power. It will be nicer if whole sci-hub is able to move to IPFS network and accessible through a domain. The problem is IPFS do not offer anonymity…

> I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible.

I understand hatred for academic publishers, however this argument makes no sense.

It takes work to produce human knowledge. Writing a book, creating educational materials, and writing research all takes time, just like it takes time to build a house.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#45

I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. Research papers through sci-hub only helps to make knowledge easily accessible. Humanity's progress depends on people who shared their knowledge, not by people who use it as a tool to rule and hold on to power. It will be nicer if whole sci-hub is able to move to IPFS network and accessible through a domain. The problem is IPFS do not offer anonymity…

> I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. I understand hatred for academic publishers, however this argument makes no sense. It takes work to produce human knowledge. Writing a book, creating educational materials, and writing research all takes time, just like it takes time to build a house.

> It takes work to produce human knowledge. Writing a book, creating educational materials, and writing research all takes time, just like it takes time to build a house.

My understanding is that most / all articles in academic journals are written by researchers who are not paid by the journal. Then, the articles are peer reviewed by another set of researchers - who are also not paid by the journal. Then, those same researchers are charged by the journal if they want to have access to the article. It's very unclear what value the journal actually brings - outside of slapping a particular well known name on the publication they don't do much. All of the people that actually do the hard work receive no direct compensation.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#46

I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. Research papers through sci-hub only helps to make knowledge easily accessible. Humanity's progress depends on people who shared their knowledge, not by people who use it as a tool to rule and hold on to power. It will be nicer if whole sci-hub is able to move to IPFS network and accessible through a domain. The problem is IPFS do not offer anonymity…

> I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. I understand hatred for academic publishers, however this argument makes no sense. It takes work to produce human knowledge. Writing a book, creating educational materials, and writing research all takes time, just like it takes time to build a house.

[deleted]

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#47

I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. Research papers through sci-hub only helps to make knowledge easily accessible. Humanity's progress depends on people who shared their knowledge, not by people who use it as a tool to rule and hold on to power. It will be nicer if whole sci-hub is able to move to IPFS network and accessible through a domain. The problem is IPFS do not offer anonymity…

> I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. I understand hatred for academic publishers, however this argument makes no sense. It takes work to produce human knowledge. Writing a book, creating educational materials, and writing research all takes time, just like it takes time to build a house.

Of course there's development costs to publications. It doesn't follow that we thus must lock publications behind paywalls or clutter them with ads.

It's perfectly consistent to both want the work funded and want it free and easily accessible. When someone says knowledge should be free, it's unreasonable and illogical to assume they are saying that knowledge work shouldn't be funded.

The discussion of how to fund work without paywalls or ads is worth having. The straw-man argument about whether we should fund work is not.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#49
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. I understand hatred for academic publishers, however this argument makes no sense. It takes work to produce human knowledge. Writing a book, creating educational materials, and writing research all takes time, just like it takes time to build a house.

> It takes work to produce human knowledge. Writing a book, creating educational materials, and writing research all takes time, just like it takes time to build a house. My understanding is that most / all articles in academic journals are written by researchers who are not paid by the journal. Then, the articles are peer reviewed by another set of researchers - who are also not paid by the journal. Then, those same…

All knowledge should not be free. The comment above mine wrote knowledge should be free and easily accessible. They are talking about all knowledge, not just academic journals, and that makes no sense.

Re: Where Sci-Hub Is

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible. I understand hatred for academic publishers, however this argument makes no sense. It takes work to produce human knowledge. Writing a book, creating educational materials, and writing research all takes time, just like it takes time to build a house.

Of course there's development costs to publications. It doesn't follow that we thus must lock publications behind paywalls or clutter them with ads. It's perfectly consistent to both want the work funded and want it free and easily accessible. When someone says knowledge should be free, it's unreasonable and illogical to assume they are saying that knowledge work shouldn't be funded. The discussion of how to fund wor…

> It's perfectly consistent to both want the work funded and want it free

No, it really isn't. It sounds like you're saying you want someone else to pay for it. That's not free.

> When someone says knowledge should be free, it's unreasonable and illogical to assume they are saying that knowledge work shouldn't be funded.

Funded work is not free.

Post reply on HN