Asked and Answered: Here's What I Think the Aaron Swartz Case Means

In my last posting, I posed four questions brought to my mind by the Aaron Swartz case. Here, I propose what I think are reasonable answers to those questions. The result is kind of a long post, but hey, it’s the weekend. Tell your spouse that the yard work will have to wait; you’re busy helping to solve the fundamental structural problems of the scholarly information marketplace.

The Aaron Swartz Case: What Does It Mean?

Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that the allegations against Swartz are proved and that he’s convicted. What would his case mean? It seems to me that it raises a number of questions that have received insufficient attention up until now.

Plagiarism — The Great Leveler

Allowing authors access to anti-plagiarism software makes pragmatic sense when you consider the demands scientific journals place on authors for perfect English, the pressures of group authorship, and the incrementalism of most papers. Perhaps it could even do more.

Branding, Plausible Deniability, and the New York Times

Publishing materials under a trusted brand, then attempting to disavow that content when complaints arise about bias and professionalism doesn’t reflect well on the New York Times, paper or corporation. Having a portfolio of products requires responsible management of the brand constellation. Hiding out in the thicket of brands is craven.