Doesn't look like plagiarism to me. Who is trying to misrepresent it as their (or their institution's) own work? I see no real reason for the URL change either

Doesn't look like plagiarism to me. Who is trying to misrepresent it as their (or their institution's) own work? I see no real reason for the URL change either, since both articles are the same. Edit: The esciencecommons blog has many more links in the article next, never mind!