互联网与文化bjoern.brembs.net
Sci-Hub：必要且有效的公民不服从
Sci-Hub as necessary, effective civil disobedience
2016 — 2017，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这篇博文主张 Sci-Hub 是必要且有效的公民不服从，用来对抗学术出版商对论文的付费墙控制。评论者从出版商牟利、公共资助知识应可获取、公民不服从的道德性，以及 Sci-Hub 对出版模式的复杂影响等角度展开辩论。
为什么经久不衰：它直击公共资助知识被私有付费墙封锁的核心矛盾，关于开放获取与学术出版改革的争论至今仍未过时。
HN 评论精选
批评学术出版商无视互联网、靠付费墙收割公共知识。
总体而言，学术出版业运作得好像互联网从未发生。互联网说：“嘿，你市中心学校图书馆没有康德的《判断力批判》，让我告诉你它说了什么。”学术出版业却说：“哇，你不在给我们付钱的机构里，你不配知道它说了什么。”他们试图显得自己大力推动知识进步，但实际上拿走你用 Word 写的论文，把同行评审的功劳揽到自己身上，做成 PDF，然后向你要钱。互联网会摧毁他们，他们正惊恐万分。靠给 PDF 设付费墙的生意还能撑多久？
robertwalsh0查看英文原文
By and large, the academic publishing industry operates in such a way that it ignores the internet ever happened. The internet says, "Hey, you don't have 'Kant's Third Critique of Judgement in your inner-city school library. Here, let me tell you what it says" the academic publishing industry says "whoa- you're not at an institution that pays us money - you don't deserve to know what this says." They try to make it seem like they do so much to push knowledge forward - but they take the paper you wrote in MSWord, take credit for the peer-review, then make it into a PDF and ask for your money. The internet is going to destroy them and they are running scared. How long can you sustain a business that relies on paywalling PDF files?
Sci-Hub 是道德上正当的公民不服从，弥补订阅缺口，并应推动旧学术评价体系退场。
我之前说过，Sci-Hub 是高尚意义上的纯粹公民不服从。事实上我认为根本不可能真正起诉她，因为没有任何道德论证能压过她所提供的东西。我经常用 Sci-Hub，因为我所在机构订阅不全，而我想获取纳税人花了数百万资助的所有知识（但纳税人并不知道这些知识最终去了哪里）。它是开放获取期刊的完美补充，直到我们像告别炼金术和颅相学那样彻底废除影响因子和引用工厂。希望曝光增加不会导致网站被关或 PayPal 账户被冻结。
return0查看英文原文
I've said in a previous comment, sci-hub is pure civil disobedience of the noble kind. In fact i thought it would be impossible to ever sue her, because there is no moral argument that can outweigh what she offers. I use sci-hub all the time because my institution doesn't have access to all the sci journals, and i want access to ALL the knowledge for which millions of taxpayers have paid for (but they don't know where that knowledge ends up). Its the perfect complement to open access journals, for the (i believe) transitory period until we do away with impact factors and citation factories for good, like we did away with alchemy and phrenology. I hope this increased publicity won't lead to shutting down the site or freeze its paypal account.
营利期刊是低服务、高收费的收租模式。
以我作为数学家的经验，大多数营利性期刊出版商本质上是收租者，靠被锁定的客户赚钱；客户除了获取一些旧文章外，几乎不再从他们那里得到什么效用。而且它们提供给作者的服务通常也比非营利期刊更差：没有文字编辑、编辑工具糟糕，完全无视它们拿来赚钱的免费内容的生产者。这完全是彻头彻尾的骗局。
tacomonstrous查看英文原文
In my experience as a mathematician, most for profit journal publishing companies are essentially rentiers making money off a captive clientele, who don't even get much utility any more from them, except for access to some older articles. Moreover, the services they provide to authors are also usually worse than the non-profit journals: no copy editing, crappy editorial tools, just a complete disregard for the actual producers of the (free) content they make money off. It's a complete and unmitigated scam.
Sci-Hub 可能反而维持出版商主导地位，抑制用户转向开放获取。
唱个反调：Sci-Hub 对出版商其实是好事。那些付不起或不愿付高额订阅费的人，会安静地用 Sci-Hub，而不是起来反抗。人们仍可通过同样的高知名度期刊发表论文并广泛传播，无需转向开放获取。出版商可能损失一些钱，但高知名度机构大概不会把 Sci-Hub 当成真正替代品，仍会继续付费。类似地，软件盗版其实能帮助大型成熟玩家。比如 Photoshop 当年被盗版得很厉害，Adobe 当然损失了钱，但我认为主要输家是更便宜的替代品：年轻又缺钱的人盗版 Photoshop、学会使用它，等工作后就想继续用 Photoshop，因为那是他们唯一熟悉的软件。如果盗版不是选项，很多人可能会转向其他更便宜的替代品。
jpalomaki查看英文原文
Playing devil's advocate: Sci-Hub is good thing for the publishers. Instead of revolting, those who can't afford (or don't want) to pay the high subscription fees for journals will just quietly use Sci-Hub. People can still continue publishing their papers via the same high profile journals and achieve a wide distribution without moving to open access scheme. Publishers may loose some money, but high profile institutions probably don't see Sci-hub as real alternative and continue paying. In a similar fashion software piracy can actually help large, established players. Take for example Photoshop, which back in the days was quite pirated piece of software. Adobe certainly lost some money, but I think the main losers were cheaper alternatives. Young and poor pirated Photoshop, learned to use it and when they got employed wanted to continue using Photoshop since that was the only package they really knew. If piracy had not been an option, many would probably have gone for other, more affordable alternatives.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如今电脑上几乎所有操作在感知上都比 1983 年更慢（2017）
Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
2017 年的推文串认为，尽管计算机硬件比 1983 年快得多，日常操作的感知速度却常常更慢：启动、界面响应和网络应用被层层抽象、动画、后台检查与网络依赖拖累。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2017–2020twitter.com网站肥胖危机
The Website Obesity Crisis
Maciej Cegłowski（idlewords）的经典演讲文稿《网站肥胖症危机》，批评现代网页越来越臃肿：动辄数 MB 的 JavaScript、追踪脚本和广告，把本可以轻…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2016–2021idlewords.com编辑精选亚马逊那本标价 23,698,655.93 美元的苍蝇书
Amazon’s $23,698,655.93 book about flies
博文讲的是亚马逊上一本关于果蝇的二手书被标到 23,698,655.93 美元。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022michaeleisen.org浏览器 User-Agent 字符串的历史
History of the browser user-agent string (2008)
2008 年的经典文章用戏谑的“创世纪”口吻，讲述浏览器 User-Agent 字符串如何从简单的标识演变成层层叠加的伪装：浏览器为了绕过按 UA 分发的网站检测，纷纷把自己伪装…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2012–2022webaim.org编辑精选最后的问题——艾萨克·阿西莫夫
The Last Question - Isaac Asimov
阿西莫夫最著名的短篇科幻小说《最后的问题》的在线全文。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2009–2019multivax.com编辑精选