6 ms·

> "We will continue to work to distribute the content under our care as widely as possible" Hint: put the content on static HTTP server without an authenticati

> "We will continue to work to distribute the content under our care as widely as possible" Hint: put the content on static HTTP server without an authentication system.

jlgreco 14y ago
Seriously. Ping archive.org if that is too challenging, I'm sure they would gleefully do it all for free.
- theelfismike 14y ago
  They _can_ do it all for free. They should just start doing what JSTOR does, but don't charge for it. Seriously, make a competing site if you think you can do it for free.
Permit 14y ago
Do you want them shut down or something? They can't legally do that. They've taken measures to try and get more articles out there in recent years for free: - Alumni are soon going to be able to freely access all articles. - Registered researches can access all articles for free. - Anyone can now read three articles every two weeks for free. Doing what you say would immediately shut down JSTOR and they couldn't continue to process new articles, provide full-text search and so on.
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  I want a world where the scientific enterprise grows beyond academia. I want a world where the collective intelligence of humanity can be brought to bear on humanity's most important problems. I want a world where the conversation of science is conducted in indexible, searchable, linkable, accessible, and modifiable public media. Is JSTOR a friend or an enemy of my vision? Three articles every two weeks - sounds like an enemy.
  - Permit 14y ago
    >I want a world where the scientific enterprise grows beyond academia. I want a world where the collective intelligence of humanity can be brought to bear on humanity's most important problems. I want a world where the conversation of science is conducted in indexible, searchable, linkable, accessible, and modifiable public media. As lovely of an idea as that is, someone has to write the backend, design the front-end, scan tens of thousands of documents and provide full-text search for them. Prior to JSTOR, these documents were trapped in university libraries, and you would have no feasible way to access them. I think they share your goals, and any problems you have with their operation is due to external factors (publishers, licensing, etc.). Simply publishing everything for free is an absolutely sure-fire way to see no new content from JSTOR and a huge setback for the digitization of physical articles. Your proposal is a ridiculous over-simplification. >Is JSTOR a friend or an enemy of my vision? Three articles every two weeks - sounds like an enemy. How often do you read JSTOR articles? Personally, I don't power through a math paper in a single day, but maybe you're brilliant. This limitation is not their fault. You're angry at the wrong people.
    - robotresearcher 14y ago
      There are nearly 7 billion people in the world. I think between us we can manage to read more than 1.5 papers a week.
      - Permit 14y ago
        Perhaps I was unclear: they're not giving away three articles to the entire world every two weeks, it's three per-person.
        robotresearcher 14y ago
        Ah, sorry for my misunderstanding. A researcher doing a literature review can easily get through fifty papers in a week. Most of them we scan to get the gist and follow up on the references looking for the few things we really need to read properly. This is a key research skill acquired by reading hundreds, eventually thousands, of papers. You get really good at it. And that's just the papers you want to read. For each one of those I might download three based on a promising abstract to find the thing is irrelevant after all. Thus an independent researcher with only public JSTOR access is seriously disadvantaged compared to a subscriber.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- 3327 14y ago
  oh yeah measures in recent years? -the first point is not even rolled out -there is no such thing as a registered researcher. The institution needs to register -the last point you mention got rolled out only 5 days ago. JSTOR has more negative than positives. I cannot think of one positive thing in this day and age about JSTOR. It should be open. Period. There hand will be forced someday and the great part is, as usual, it will be too late and they will be a history.
  - tzs 14y ago
    > I cannot think of one positive thing in this day and age about JSTOR Without JSTOR: there would be no online access at all to many journals, and there would be many with online access between individual paywalls at the individual journal. With JSTOR: online access is available to many journals it would not otherwise be available for; online access is greatly more convenient for many for-pay journals than it otherwise would be. How can you not see positives in this? They are strictly making things MORE accessible than they otherwise would be. Would it be better if these things were even more accessible? Sure--but these are things JSTOR does NOT own the rights to.
- officemonkey 14y ago
  >Do you want them shut down or something? They can't legally do that Why not? And more importantly, why couldn't "putting themselves out of business" be their goal? Most of us have no problem if on-line solutions disrupt private sector business. But we get all gooey and stupid when it's a not-for-profit, like they get a pass because they're supposedly doing good. Frankly, if you can't service the needs of society, then you deserve to be made irrelevant. JSTOR should be able to process and index academic journals without six-figure salaries and Manhattan offices.
  - jahewson 14y ago
    They have to pay license fees to the publishers. That's where most of the money is going.
    - officemonkey 14y ago
      That and Manhattan wages for their staff.

> "We will continue to work to distribute the content under our care as widely as possible" Hint: put the content on static HTTP server without an authentication system.

jlgreco 14y ago

Seriously. Ping archive.org if that is too challenging, I'm sure they would gleefully do it all for free.

theelfismike 14y ago
They _can_ do it all for free. They should just start doing what JSTOR does, but don't charge for it. Seriously, make a competing site if you think you can do it for free.

Permit 14y ago

Do you want them shut down or something? They can't legally do that. They've taken measures to try and get more articles out there in recent years for free: - Alumni are soon going to be able to freely access all articles. - Registered researches can access all articles for free. - Anyone can now read three articles every two weeks for free. Doing what you say would immediately shut down JSTOR and they couldn't continue to process new articles, provide full-text search and so on.

jacoblyles 14y ago
I want a world where the scientific enterprise grows beyond academia. I want a world where the collective intelligence of humanity can be brought to bear on humanity's most important problems. I want a world where the conversation of science is conducted in indexible, searchable, linkable, accessible, and modifiable public media. Is JSTOR a friend or an enemy of my vision? Three articles every two weeks - sounds like an enemy.
- Permit 14y ago
  >I want a world where the scientific enterprise grows beyond academia. I want a world where the collective intelligence of humanity can be brought to bear on humanity's most important problems. I want a world where the conversation of science is conducted in indexible, searchable, linkable, accessible, and modifiable public media. As lovely of an idea as that is, someone has to write the backend, design the front-end, scan tens of thousands of documents and provide full-text search for them. Prior to JSTOR, these documents were trapped in university libraries, and you would have no feasible way to access them. I think they share your goals, and any problems you have with their operation is due to external factors (publishers, licensing, etc.). Simply publishing everything for free is an absolutely sure-fire way to see no new content from JSTOR and a huge setback for the digitization of physical articles. Your proposal is a ridiculous over-simplification. >Is JSTOR a friend or an enemy of my vision? Three articles every two weeks - sounds like an enemy. How often do you read JSTOR articles? Personally, I don't power through a math paper in a single day, but maybe you're brilliant. This limitation is not their fault. You're angry at the wrong people.
  - robotresearcher 14y ago
    There are nearly 7 billion people in the world. I think between us we can manage to read more than 1.5 papers a week.
    - Permit 14y ago
      Perhaps I was unclear: they're not giving away three articles to the entire world every two weeks, it's three per-person.
      - robotresearcher 14y ago
        Ah, sorry for my misunderstanding. A researcher doing a literature review can easily get through fifty papers in a week. Most of them we scan to get the gist and follow up on the references looking for the few things we really need to read properly. This is a key research skill acquired by reading hundreds, eventually thousands, of papers. You get really good at it. And that's just the papers you want to read. For each one of those I might download three based on a promising abstract to find the thing is irrelevant after all. Thus an independent researcher with only public JSTOR access is seriously disadvantaged compared to a subscriber.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
3327 14y ago
oh yeah measures in recent years? -the first point is not even rolled out -there is no such thing as a registered researcher. The institution needs to register -the last point you mention got rolled out only 5 days ago. JSTOR has more negative than positives. I cannot think of one positive thing in this day and age about JSTOR. It should be open. Period. There hand will be forced someday and the great part is, as usual, it will be too late and they will be a history.
- tzs 14y ago
  > I cannot think of one positive thing in this day and age about JSTOR Without JSTOR: there would be no online access at all to many journals, and there would be many with online access between individual paywalls at the individual journal. With JSTOR: online access is available to many journals it would not otherwise be available for; online access is greatly more convenient for many for-pay journals than it otherwise would be. How can you not see positives in this? They are strictly making things MORE accessible than they otherwise would be. Would it be better if these things were even more accessible? Sure--but these are things JSTOR does NOT own the rights to.
officemonkey 14y ago
>Do you want them shut down or something? They can't legally do that Why not? And more importantly, why couldn't "putting themselves out of business" be their goal? Most of us have no problem if on-line solutions disrupt private sector business. But we get all gooey and stupid when it's a not-for-profit, like they get a pass because they're supposedly doing good. Frankly, if you can't service the needs of society, then you deserve to be made irrelevant. JSTOR should be able to process and index academic journals without six-figure salaries and Manhattan offices.
- jahewson 14y ago
  They have to pay license fees to the publishers. That's where most of the money is going.
  - officemonkey 14y ago
    That and Manhattan wages for their staff.