Open Access: A Modern Robin Hood Story
Aaron Swartz and his “Guerilla Open Access Manifesto” offer the reader a number of interesting and thought-provoking topics to consider. Swartz seemed to see himself as a type of freedom fighter, except that instead of fighting for the freedom of people he fought for the freedom of information. Along these lines he states that there, “is no justice in following unjust laws.” Further, he calls for all able individuals to upload all the information to which we have access to file-sharing networks and archives. The goal of this being the creation of accessible information to everyone. While on the surface this cause seems admirable, there are a few problems that Swartz does not address. First, although companies are buying massive amounts of information and then charging others to access it, this also provides a source of income for those who provide the information. If all of this information were to automatically become public, many researchers would lose a substantial amount of money. Further, without this monetary incentive, will there be a decrease in the number of researchers? Second, because these companies are spending money on the research, they are quick to make sure that they are buying a quality product. We see this in required peer-review and application processes. Therefore, would there also be a decrease in the quality of the research that is put out? One would be hard-pressed to say that providing everyone with easy and equal access to information is a bad thing but, given that the current system is how it is, one can also not overlook issues such as these; issues that Swartz does not address in his manifesto.
When considering the points made above, the manifesto then paints Swartz as an idealist. This article on Swartz, written after his death, confirms such a statement. It states that he was not able to truly devote himself to any particular cause; instead being obsessed with only one: making the world a wonderful place. It is therefore only logical that Swartz would champion a cause such as open access. By no means was his cause a malicious one but, given the information provided, it was idealistic and possibly unfeasible.
Swartz’s manifesto would benefit greatly by simply addressing the issue listed earlier in this post. How will researchers be compensated for their work? How will research be vetted to make sure that it is credible? If researchers are not to be compensated, how should be expect them to keep publishing in mass? Swartz clearly had a vision of a more equal and educated world, and for that he should be applauded. However, one must not lose sight of his underlying objective: to make the world a wonderful place. Such a goal is not only subjective, but also enormous. If we are to strive towards the type of world that Swartz had in mind, then human nature will very likely need to be changed. Unfortunately, that is something that no file-sharing network can ever alter.
