8 ms·

The fact that exciting scientific discoveries like this are being presented on WSJ behind a paywall is absurd. Science on the internet is going to be dramatical

The fact that exciting scientific discoveries like this are being presented on WSJ behind a paywall is absurd. Science on the internet is going to be dramatically different in 10 years than it is right now...

jp555 12y ago
You think the people at the WSJ should work for free? I think that's absurd. Have you never attempted to read original scientific papers? Most are hidden behind paywalls. Search for yourself - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gquery/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gquery/
- mrqwerty 12y ago
  Not true, or at least depends on the field. I am able to find 80% of the maths, physics, comp sci papers that interest me. I think reducing all human interaction into a measure of value is absurd - but there you go, each to his own.
jonnathanson 12y ago
It's inconvenient for us, but I wouldn't necessarily call it "absurd." The Wall Street Journal is not a 501(c). It's either this, or a flurry of intrusive ads. (Or a subscription upsell, but I digress). Different publications pick their poison differently. But someone's gotta pay for something. Besides, paywalls aren't hard to circumvent. Someone usually posts a redirect within minutes of these articles' being linked here.
- irollboozers 12y ago
  Surely someone at WSJ is wondering "Hey, this article is doing really well in organic search. Our numbers are up, great job everyone."
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    I'm not a paywall advocate, fwiw. I think it's a suboptimal monetization strategy that often directly conflicts with distribution and UX. That said, I don't think it's ipso facto ridiculous. There are better ways to monetize, but not monetizing is not an option for WSJ.
  - bduerst 12y ago
    Unless they use referral page to identify aggregators (Reddit, Digg, HN, etc.) as a specific channel. For a news website you would hope they do, otherwise their marketing dept isn't doing a very good job.
- baddox 12y ago
  It's absurd in the context of social norms and expectations. A restaurant isn't a 501(c) either, but I would call it absurd if they charged a customer to use the restroom.
  - privong 12y ago
    > A restaurant isn't a 501(c) either, but I would call it absurd if they charged a customer to use the restroom. The cost of the restroom visit is, in a sense, folded into the cost of the meal. That is why many restaurants only allow paying customers to use the restrooms.
  - tonyarkles 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure that when I was in Paris, it cost $0.25 or $0.50 to use the restroom at McDonalds. Which, to be honest, made me feel better about walking in, using their restroom, and carrying on without purchasing a meal :)
    - IgorPartola 12y ago
      I bet they were cleaner for it too.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Since when do social norms and expectations involve getting journalists' work for free? This basically never happened as little as twenty years ago, and everybody was fine with it. I don't think norms have changed so quickly.
    - baddox 12y ago
      > Since when do social norms and expectations involve getting journalists' work for free? That's a false dichotomy. Websites for major news outlets have always been overwhelming "free" (as in, not behind a paywall, but they obviously try to monetize through ads).
      - mikeash 12y ago
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
One suspects that there are plenty of more primary sources for this matter. (Also the WSJ is a Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece, and bypassing its paywall is a mitzvah.)
mikeash 12y ago
You seem to be implying that the WSJ is the exclusive source for this information. Is that true? It strikes me as unlikely, to say the least.

jp555 12y ago

You think the people at the WSJ should work for free? I think that's absurd. Have you never attempted to read original scientific papers? Most are hidden behind paywalls. Search for yourself - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gquery/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gquery/

mrqwerty 12y ago
Not true, or at least depends on the field. I am able to find 80% of the maths, physics, comp sci papers that interest me. I think reducing all human interaction into a measure of value is absurd - but there you go, each to his own.

jonnathanson 12y ago

It's inconvenient for us, but I wouldn't necessarily call it "absurd." The Wall Street Journal is not a 501(c). It's either this, or a flurry of intrusive ads. (Or a subscription upsell, but I digress). Different publications pick their poison differently. But someone's gotta pay for something. Besides, paywalls aren't hard to circumvent. Someone usually posts a redirect within minutes of these articles' being linked here.

irollboozers 12y ago
Surely someone at WSJ is wondering "Hey, this article is doing really well in organic search. Our numbers are up, great job everyone."
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  I'm not a paywall advocate, fwiw. I think it's a suboptimal monetization strategy that often directly conflicts with distribution and UX. That said, I don't think it's ipso facto ridiculous. There are better ways to monetize, but not monetizing is not an option for WSJ.
- bduerst 12y ago
  Unless they use referral page to identify aggregators (Reddit, Digg, HN, etc.) as a specific channel. For a news website you would hope they do, otherwise their marketing dept isn't doing a very good job.
baddox 12y ago
It's absurd in the context of social norms and expectations. A restaurant isn't a 501(c) either, but I would call it absurd if they charged a customer to use the restroom.
- privong 12y ago
  > A restaurant isn't a 501(c) either, but I would call it absurd if they charged a customer to use the restroom. The cost of the restroom visit is, in a sense, folded into the cost of the meal. That is why many restaurants only allow paying customers to use the restrooms.
- tonyarkles 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure that when I was in Paris, it cost $0.25 or $0.50 to use the restroom at McDonalds. Which, to be honest, made me feel better about walking in, using their restroom, and carrying on without purchasing a meal :)
  - IgorPartola 12y ago
    I bet they were cleaner for it too.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Since when do social norms and expectations involve getting journalists' work for free? This basically never happened as little as twenty years ago, and everybody was fine with it. I don't think norms have changed so quickly.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > Since when do social norms and expectations involve getting journalists' work for free? That's a false dichotomy. Websites for major news outlets have always been overwhelming "free" (as in, not behind a paywall, but they obviously try to monetize through ads).
    - mikeash 12y ago

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago

One suspects that there are plenty of more primary sources for this matter. (Also the WSJ is a Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece, and bypassing its paywall is a mitzvah.)

mikeash 12y ago

You seem to be implying that the WSJ is the exclusive source for this information. Is that true? It strikes me as unlikely, to say the least.