历史与人物theverge.com
科学界的海盗女王：Sci-Hub 与 Alexandra Elbakyan
Science’s Pirate Queen
2018 — 2019，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 The Verge 2018 年的报道介绍 Sci-Hub 创始人 Alexandra Elbakyan：她通过网站绕过学术出版商的付费墙，让论文免费可读，也因此面临诉讼和巨大争议。文章围绕她的经历与 Sci-Hub 的运作，呈现开放获取、版权和公共资助研究之间的冲突。
为什么经久不衰：它把‘知识是否应自由获取’的法律与伦理冲突集中到一个具体人物身上，至今仍是理解开放科学争论的必读背景。
HN 评论精选
把 Elbakyan 比作科学界马丁·路德，认为 Sci-Hub/LibGen 推动科学民主化，是道德而非经济问题。
在我看来，Alexandra Elbakyan 有点像科学界的马丁·路德：她让普通公众能直接阅读和解释科学，而不必等待名校学者的解释与认可。考虑到 HN 的受众，这可能是‘亵渎’的观点；我也担心有人不懂科学哲学与实践就凭论文做判断。但 Sci-Hub 和 LibGen 确实让具备基本科学素养的人都能接触科学，我看到同事朋友直接分享论文链接，这在几年前不可想象。这推动科学民主化，对我来说是道德问题，不只是经济问题。
afpx查看英文原文
To me, Alexandra Elbakyan is kind of like a Martin Luther of science. That is, she enables the lay public to read and interpret science rather than awaiting the interpretation and approval of academics from high-status institutions. That may be a ‘sacrilege’ view here, given the audience of HN. And, in a way, I do feel somewhat nervous of people making decisions based on papers they read without understanding of the philosophy and practice of science. Yet, it’s unavoidable and already being done through popular journalism. With sci-hub (and with some reference books obtained via libgen), science becomes accessible to everyone with basic scientific literacy - a surprising large number of people. I see these two tools together as enablers of a new generation of scientists. For instance, recently I have seen many of my collegues and friends sending me direct links to research papers. That’s crazy and would have never happened just a few years ago. These tools will drive the democratization of science. Just as I now see the religious kids at the coffee shop discussing their scripture, I hope to soon see science kids there discussing classic science papers - doing it not for economic or career reasons, but simply to understand and discover. To me, that’s not an economic issue but one of morality.
指出出版商曾游说反对公共资助研究的开放获取，认为这难以赢得公众同情。
同年，AAP 和 Elsevier 还支持并游说一项法案，该法案本会阻止政府要求机构将期刊发表的研究在任何时候开放获取。我明白自己不该惊讶，但这还是让我震惊：纳税人获取自己资助的研究竟成了禁忌。这些组织还怎么指望公众同情？
namelost查看英文原文
That same year, the AAP and Elsevier also supported and lobbied in favor of a bill that would have prevented the government from requiring agencies to make research published through a journal Open Access at any point I realize I shouldn't be surprised, but that shocked me. God forbid taxpayers should have access to the research they paid for. How these organizations expect any public sympathy is beyond me.
认为互联网本身源于公共资助的免费科技，为营利出版辩护自相矛盾。
我们都在通过技术访问 HN，而这些技术的基础假设就是自由可用——协议栈、应用与协议的绑定、程序源代码所代表的定义、编译器工具……难道只有我看到其中的矛盾：人们一边为营利性科学出版辩护，一边使用一个其存在本身依赖政府资助科技并以‘免费’为要求的载体？
ggm查看英文原文
We are all interacting with this HN website over technology whose very underpinnings was the assumption its freely available -The protocol stack, the application-to-protocol bindings, the definitions which a program source code represents, the compiler tools.. Am I alone in seeing the contradictions, of people defending for-profit science publishing, using a vehicle whose very existence is predicated on government funded science and technology coming with 'its free' as a requirement?
系统批评学术出版：公共资金资助研究，出版商无偿获取劳动却向大学收费，学者被职业评价锁住。
坦率地说，科学出版商代表着对纳税人资金的制度化盗窃：学者（多由公共拨款和大学薪水资助）免费做研究、学 LaTeX 并排版、免费校对或自掏公共资金请人校对；志愿学者（占用大学时间，又是公共资金）免费评审；期刊却向生产其产品的大学收取数百万英镑订阅费和开放获取费，作者从未获酬。最沮丧的是，学者被知名期刊/会议带来的职业前景锁在这个系统里。我通常不鼓吹‘国有化’，但若有行业该被拆解交公众，就是这些寄生虫。真诚地，一名科学家 :-)
hugofirth查看英文原文
Frankly, scientific publishers represent institutionalised theft of tax payer money: - Academics (most often publicly funded via grants and university salaries) do the work for free. - They are expected to learn to use LaTeX and to typeset their work for free. - They are expected to copy-edit the papers for free, or else pay a copy editor themselves with, you guessed it, public funds. - Volunteer Academics (on university time and therefore, again, public money) are expected to review the work for technical accuracy and novelty. If done well this is extremely time consuming. - Finally, the Journals have the temerity to charge the same universities who produce their product millions of pounds a year in journal subscriptions and Open Access fees. - Finally finally, none of the Authors are ever paid for their work. Not that it matters, because again: public funding should mean public access. The most frustrating part is that Academics themselves are locked into this system by the career prospects conferred by prestigious journals/conferences. I’m not normally one for beating the “nationalise them” drum, but if there has ever been a case for businesses to be dismantled and put in public hands it’s these parasites. Sincerely, a Scientist :-)
历次讨论
同类还值得读
开发者无薪坚持完成 Mac 图形计算器：一个秘密项目的故事
Dev stays without pay to finish Mac Graphing Calculator as skunkworks project
苹果 Mac 图形计算器（Graphing Calculator）开发者的亲述：在项目被砍后，几位工程师在没有报酬、没有正式授权的情况下，以“地下项目”方式偷偷留在公司把软件做完…
历史与人物上首页 6 次 · 2009–2022pacifict.com理查德·费曼与 Connection Machine
Richard Feynman and the Connection Machine
长文回忆费曼晚年参与 Connection Machine 并行计算机项目的经历：他分析路由器、用自创的并行 Basic 编写 QCD 程序，也涉足细胞自动机等主题。
历史与人物上首页 5 次 · 2010–2021longnow.org编辑精选负 2000 行代码
-2000 Lines of Code
folklore.org 上 Andy Hertzfeld 记录的一则苹果 Macintosh 开发轶事：Bill Atkinson 被问到写了多少行代码时，回答“-2000 行…
历史与人物上首页 4 次 · 2014–2022folklore.org编辑精选Dennis Ritchie 的第一版 C 编译器（约 1972 年）
Dennis Ritchie’s first C compiler (c. 1972)
这个 GitHub 仓库保存了 Dennis Ritchie 约 1972 年编写的最早 C 编译器源码，是 C 语言和 Unix 早期历史的一手材料。
历史与人物上首页 4 次 · 2013–2025github.com一位破解赛马密码的赌徒
A Gambler Who Cracked the Horse-Racing Code (2018)
彭博社 2018 年的长篇特写，讲述数学家 Bill Benter 如何用统计模型和算法在赛马博彩中持续盈利、累计赢得近十亿美元的故事。
历史与人物上首页 4 次 · 2018–2024bloomberg.com