Open Access Archivangelism

VANCSO (Full Posting):
“Fiscal accountability belongs to standard practices of science: scientists who use taxpayers money are responsible to the society for the use of the funds they receive for the purpose they were funded. Fraud must be unveiled, criminal practices must be prosecuted. It is the right of the society to probe whether the funds were used in an appropriate manner. It is the responsibility of legal entities to provide justice and prosecute (or acquit) those who violate the law. A group of international scientists launched an initiative in support of a group of Hungarian philosophers to interfere in a Hungarian inquiry related to possible abuse of public funds. In addition to fund abuse, criminal charges related to fraud and tax evasion are also considered. The authors of the initiative consider the allegations politically motivated and believe that these lack substance. In an open letter the president of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HUS) was requested to "take a prompt, prominent and uneqivocal public position in support of the research and researchers thus attacked...". This requests nothing less than jumping to conclusions prior to unveiling justice. Those, who know the situation best, i.e. the resident Members of the HUS, were not addressed assuming that in their homeland they might be prosecuted when they make their opinion heard. This is a ridiculous and politically loaded assumption. Meanwhile an emotional discussion broke out also in this forum. As external HUS member I urged the authors to withdraw their letter, and remain factual as opposed to arguing by using pompous rhetoric and hide the facts behind a smokescreen of general academic principles to which all scientists of stature subscribe. In my opinion they should wait for the outcome of the inquiries as if the accused have nothing to fear, justice will surely be provided. The group of the accused philosophers believe that they have been harrassed. The use of the harrassment argument may provide a smokescreen to divert the attention from the facts. The questions are whether the law was broken, and whether the fiscal responsibility of principal scientists has been abused. I pointed out that the open letter lacked facts. I believe that no one should rush into premature and unsubstantiated conclusions without facts. Professor Daniel Dennett, a world leading philosopher and one of the three signatories of the open letter meanwhile withdrew his signature as he recognized that he is not in the possession of enough information which would allow him to lend his name to this action. But do we have enough information? Has public money been abused? Has the law been broken? Has a group of scholars abused their influence? Let's see what the results of the inquiry will tell. Meanwhile my advise is for all those who support this initiative to remain professional, and stick to the facts, for ugly and polarized accusations surely will not help to unveil the truth.”

---

IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
COMP/MOOT/CRIM & PRO/DEN
HARNAD:
I would like to suggest that we all use some abbreviations marking important distinctions that will make this discussion easier for observers to follow and understand:

The allegations against the philosophers are of three fundamentally different kinds that need to be carefully distinguished. The first kind – “COMP” (for complaints) -- consists of the kinds of generic allegations that researchers everywhere often make about one another’s funding and about the funding system (the allotments were unfair, the system was unfair, etc.). The second kind – “CRIM” (for crimes) -- alleges that either rules or laws have been broken by the philosophers in question. The third kind – “MOOT” (for moot) – alleges that there were egregious practices by the philosophers in question – practices against which there should have been rules or laws, but those rules and laws do not yet exist, and did not exist at the time.

If the reader does not keep clearly in mind the distinctions among generic and systemic complaints (COMP), allegations of practices that ought to be criminalized (MOOT) and allegations of criminality (CRIM), it will be impossible to follow the discussion or draw any coherent conclusion.

At those polarized points in the discussion where the COMP/MOOT/CRIM distinction is particularly crucial, let us call the two contending sides “PRO” (for proponents of criminal allegations [CRIM] against the philosophers) and “DEN” (for deniers of CRIM allegations against the philosophers).
It is the contention of PRO that the accused philosophers have committed crimes (CRIM) and that the deniers (DEN) are biased in favor of the accused, and trying to obstruct justice.

It is the contention of DEN that no crimes (CRIM) have been committed by the accused philosophers, but, rather -- for undisclosed reasons, suspected to be a government policy of retribution against its predecessor government’s corruption and selective harassment of its current critics – COMP and MOOT have been systematically escalated by PRO into allegations of crime (CRIM) against the accused philosophers.

In commenting and responding, it will be a great help if everyone identifies clearly when they are speaking of COMP, MOOT or CRIM (and, where relevant, whether their own position is PRO or DEN regarding CRIM in particular).

---

Quote/Commentary on Vancso posting:

VANCSO:
“Fiscal accountability belongs to standard practices of science: scientists who use taxpayers money are responsible to the society for the use of the funds they receive for the purpose they were funded.”

HARNAD:
It is important for everyone to note that all sides – both PRO and DEN – agree on this point. The inadequacy of the current funding system and the need for reform are not a point of disagreement.

(1) Research funding requires a system of reliable, rigorous accountability, to make sure that funds are properly used, in accordance with explicit funding rules and procedures, as well as with the law of the land.

(2) If the rules and procedures and/or the methods of auditing and accountability of the previous government’s funding system were inadequate (as everyone agrees they were) then that system of rules and procedures and its methods of auditing and accountability need to be reformed. And if the prior law of the land was not adequate, then that too must be changed.

(3) But what is a first fundamental point of disagreement between PRO and DEN is that, if the prior system's rules and procedures and its methods of auditing and accountability were indeed inadequate and in need of reform (as everyone agrees they were) then what is needed is to reform the system, not to seek retroactive retribution against an arbitrarily targeted subset of scholars to avenge the fact that the prior system was inadequate.

(4) The second fundamental point of disagreement between PRO and DEN is that if retrospective recriminations and retribution are to take priority over reform, then that retribution can only be done even-handedly: That means that either a systematic total audit must be done of all prior funding under the old system in the time-frame in question (the past ten years) -- or at least the systematic audit of a blind random sample -- to identify whether and which research projects have either violated the old rules or broken the existing laws (CRIM).

(5) What is in no way acceptable or justifiable is to single out a handful of funded research projects a priori -- for whatever a priori reason, and certainly not COMP or MOOT reasons – for selective allegations of CRIM and selective investigations of CRIM -- without first having done a systematic and even-handed prior comparison with the rest of the research funded under the old system to see whether any egregious cases really emerge.

(6) For if all or most or even many of the funded research projects during this period show the same symptoms of the inadequacy of the current funding system, then selectively singling out the accused – merely on COMP or MOOT grounds – is merely arbitrary scape-goating and harassment.

VANCSO:
“Fraud must be unveiled, criminal practices must be prosecuted.”

HARNAD:
Yes indeed, but has fraud (CRIM) been demonstrated? Has criminality been proven? Are these not rather strong words to be used when nothing has been proven and the only thing that seems certain is that the rules and procedures and the auditing and answerability of the existing funding system were inadequate? Performing in accordance with the rules and procedures and the auditing and answerability of an inadequate system (whether COMP or MOOT) is not synonymous with CRIM.

And if the presumption is that there have indeed been significant violations of the existing rules and procedures of the existing (inadequate) system during the time period in question (CRIM), then on what basis have the 5-6 accused philosophers in particular been singled out for this presumption?

Violations (if any) of the existing rules and procedures (CRIM) of an inadequate system could have been frequent or rare or anything in between. The way to find out is through a systematic audit (total or blind/random), across all funded fields.

VANCSO:
“It is the right of the society to probe whether the funds were used in an appropriate manner.”

HARNAD:
This is indisputably true, PRO and DEN both agree on it, and if it had been decided to do an exhaustive retroactive audit of all research projects funded during the decade in question – or even a blind random sample across projects and fields – no one could or would have cried foul, either at the audit or the outcome (if the outcome was that some projects had either broken rules or the law [CRIM], whereas many or most had not).

It is a pragmatic question whether -- after 10 years of implementing a funding system whose rules and procedures, and methods of accountability, were inadequate -- the best use of time and funds is to do a total retroactive audit in order to find and punish prior infractions, or rather to channel efforts into designing and implementing a reformed funding system, with clear rules and procedures, and rigorous methods of ongoing auditing and accountability.

But whether the decision is for proactive reform or retroactive retribution, the methods have to be fair and unbiased. Singling out a handful of philosophers for selective scrutiny, with no population baseline for comparison, is at best an ad hoc fishing expedition and at worst ad hominem harassment.

VANCSO:
“It is the responsibility of legal entities to provide justice and prosecute (or acquit) those who violate the law.”

HARNAD:
Undisputed. This is not the subject of disagreement.

VANCSO:
“A group of international scientists launched an initiative in support of a group of Hungarian philosophers to interfere in a Hungarian inquiry related to possible abuse of public funds.”

HARNAD:
If the initiative in question here is the Open Letter -- by External and Honorary members of the Hungarian Academy of Science asking the President to support the accused philosophers and oppose those accusing them of unproven wrongdoing -- it is not at all clear why Professor Vancso describes this as interference in a legal inquiry.

If public accusations (PRO) of criminality (CRIM) against the philosophers by the press and public officials (including the President of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) are not interfering with any legal inquiry, then how are public statements in their defense (DEN) doing so?

Is it not reasonable to ask why the inquiry was directed at this group of philosophers? what the basis for the selection and comparison was? and why the outcome is being pre-judged and the accused being vilified in the Government-supported press when there has been no factual or juridical outcome

VANCSO:
“In addition to fund abuse, criminal charges related to fraud and tax evasion are also considered.”

HARNAD:
Charges (CRIM) are easy to make, but what is the evidence, and what is the verdict? Under Hungary's tax laws (I am told), it is currently legal (MOOT) and widely done (among laymen, professionals and researchers alike) for individuals to receive income in private corporations that are taxed at lower rates than personal income. That sounds like one of the laws worth reforming.

But it is not at all clear why these philosophers been singled out to be charged with this, since it is so widespread, and ostensibly legal (MOOT). Was a systematic audit done, and these philosophers turned out to be the only practitioners, or among the few? Or is the practice common, and they were singled out to be accused of it for another reason?

VANCSO:
“The authors of the initiative consider the allegations politically motivated and believe that these lack substance. In an open letter the president of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HUS) was requested to ‘take a prompt, prominent and uneqivocal public position in support of the research and researchers thus attacked...’. This requests nothing less than jumping to conclusions prior to unveiling justice.”

HARNAD:
It is not at all clear why claiming that crimes (CRIM) have been committed and proven (as is already repeatedly being done in this Forum) is not "jumping to conclusions prior to unveiling justice" (PRO) whereas saying they have not (DEN), is.

VANCSO:
“Those, who know the situation best, i.e. the resident Members of the HUS, were not addressed assuming that in their homeland they might be prosecuted when they make their opinion heard. This is a ridiculous and politically loaded assumption.”

HARNAD:
The Open Letter is an Open Letter, and of course Internal members are free to co-sign. They were not explicitly invited in order not to put them on the spot, one way or the other. Surely this point is not difficult to understand.

VANCSO:
“Meanwhile an emotional discussion broke out also in this forum. As external HUS member I urged the authors to withdraw their letter, and remain factual as opposed to arguing by using pompous rhetoric and hide the facts behind a smokescreen of general academic principles to which all scientists of stature subscribe. In my opinion they should wait for the outcome of the inquiries as if the accused have nothing to fear, justice will surely be provided. The group of the accused philosophers believe that they have been harrassed. The use of the harrassment argument may provide a smokescreen to divert the attention from the facts. The questions are whether the law was broken, and whether the fiscal responsibility of principal scientists has been abused. I pointed out that the open letter lacked facts. I believe that no one should rush into premature and unsubstantiated conclusions without facts.”

HARNAD:
The defenders against the accusations (DEN) certainly share Professor Vancso's belief that no one should rush into premature and unsubstantiated conclusions without facts. But it is unfortunately not at all clear that the promulgators of the accusations themselves (PRO) share that belief.

I am not sure what Professor Vancso means by "an emotional discussion broke out also in this forum" (if by forum he means the exchange of emails among the signatories of the Open Letter. Professor Vancso wrote his own response to the Open Letter on the day it was sent (January 28), branching it to the first 3 signatories and the President of the Academy, and to my knowledge, the only other communication was my invitation to him (on February 5) to post his views to ScienceInsider (which he has now kindly done, for which many thanks!).

But what was the “emotional discussion”? Is Professor Vancso referring to the present forum (ScienceInsider?) (Perhaps there was another series of email exchanges to which not everyone on Professor Vancso’s original CC list was privy?)

Apart from this, I would add that it is indeed true, quite symmetrically, that both the PRO and DEN lack facts. However, there is also an asymmetry that is not being very conscientiously acknowledged: the presumption of innocence until/unless guilt is proven. Already several who have posted to ScienceInsider have illustrated how confidently one can pass from acknowledging that no one knows whether crimes have been committed at all, to speaking of the obviousness of the crimes (CRIM) -- indeed the long history of crimes -- of the accused.

There is no smokescreen of "general academic principles" here (are principles smokescreens?): It is not known that anyone has committed any crime. Hence the only question is, why are so many people speaking about CRIM in connection with the philosophers in question? Why were they singled out? And why is there this polarization between PRO and DEN when everyone (including the Academy) should be taking the side of presumptive innocence until/unless facts prove otherwise

VANCSO:
“Professor Daniel Dennett, a world leading philosopher and one of the three signatories of the open letter meanwhile withdrew his signature as he recognized that he is not in the possession of enough information which would allow him to lend his name to this action. But do we have enough information? Has public money been abused? Has the law been broken? Has a group of scholars abused their influence? Let's see what the results of the inquiry will tell. Meanwhile my advise is for all those who support this initiative to remain professional, and stick to the facts, for ugly and polarized accusations surely will not help to unveil the truth.”

HARNAD:
Again, there is no disagreement at all that ugly and polarized accusations will not help unveil the truth. But let us not forget that the only accused ones are the philosophers in question, and they are accused of having committed crimes (CRIM); those ugly and polarized accusations against them are coming from their accusers (PRO); and the other side is defending (DEN) from them. Unlike the accused philosophers, no one is being accused (let alone prosecuted) of a crime by the defenders. (Please let us not confuse the fact that (1) the two sides, PRO and DEN, do not always have the most flattering opinion of one another with (2) accusations of crime [CRIM].)

My own guess (but Professor Vancso can correct me on this) is that the "emotional discussion" to which Professor Vancso refers was in fact the "torrent of messages both condemning and supporting" his having signed the Open Letter that eventually persuaded Dan Dennett – the kindest and fairest of men, someone I love and admire, and to whom I am greatly indebted personally -- to ask me to transmit to the President of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences the message that "I simply do not know enough about the specific issues to have a responsible opinion about how the principles enunciated in the letter, to which I do fully subscribe, should be applied in this situation... I must withdraw my signature in order not to be drawn into this polarized atmosphere." (The resultant emotion in the PRO press all the ensuing week was jubilation! The polarized atmosphere is now on display here.)

My hope is that the ScienceInsider forum will show that when it comes to taking sides between accusing (PRO) of crime (CRIM) and defending against accusations of crime (DEN), the truth is not necessarily in the middle.

But first we need a few more iterations of this discussion to get all the prima facie allegations (COMP, MOOT and CRIM) (and the motives for making them) out into the open.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

---

Note: It has subsequently become apparent that "Istvan "MAGYAR" has been posting under a false name; his real identity remains To Determine.

---

"MAGYAR" (full posting):
“The scholars have received grants totaling 440 million forints—about $2 million—to support dozens of research projects, postdocs, and students" This is just false. The fact is that an overwhelming majority of the money went into the pockets of well-connected and well-paid philosophers having two, three or in Vajda's case five other sources of income. This happened either through personal accounts or personal businesses, and frequently with an obvious violation of the law. The money didn't go into philosophical research. So before writing an article like this, one should perhaps explore the facts instead of asking one obviously biased philosopher, Bodnar, who is also listed in one of the projects. The recipe is well-known: ask the one who says what you want to hear, don't bother if he is part of the plot.”
   “The evidence is entirely public, has been made so by the condemned press on the government's side. A move which the press on the left would never have made, as these facts are true but harmful to their favourite intellectuals, most of the time personal friends of the editors themselves. One should just think about the regular dinners Heller has with the editor of the "independent" Nepszabadsag.”
   “So, what Harnad and Bohannon say is just ignorance. They don't mention the money that was pocketed by these philosophers through contracts signed with themselves, with their very own businesses, etc. All these facts are public, including the amounts that landed in their hands. And at least Harnad should be able to read Hungarian... especially if he is organizing resistance against what? A legal investigation... obstructing justice? If the facts made public by "MAGYAR" Nemzet were false, there should have been a lot of legal cases initiated, but there are none. Why not if all these facts, unknown to these combative intellectuals here, are false? So, contrary to Nyiri, we do know facts: stated by the press and undisputed by these philosophers. (By the way, there are several other projects and other businesses under investigation as well, not only philosophers' and historians'. So, watch out, there may be some other white-collar criminals needing your support.)”

---

Quote/commentary on "MAGYAR" posting:

"MAGYAR":
“The scholars have received grants totaling 440 million forints—about $2 million—to support dozens of research projects, postdocs, and students" This is just false. The fact is that an overwhelming majority of the money went into the pockets of well-connected and well-paid philosophers having two, three or in Vajda's case five other sources of income.”

HARNAD:
Reminder to the reader in this litany of allegations: Is this a claim that the law has been broken (CRIM)? Or that there were practices that were permissible under the current funding system that ought to me made impermissible (MOOT)? Or is this just a generic complaint that researchers have received more funding than I think they deserved (COMP)?

"MAGYAR":
“This happened either through personal accounts or personal businesses, and frequently with an obvious violation of the law.”

HARNAD:
Surely whether or not there has been “an obvious violation of the law” (CRIM) is for the courts to decide. Apart from that, all we have here is a confident accusation of criminality (PRO).

"MAGYAR":
“The money didn't go into philosophical research. So before writing an article like this, one should perhaps explore the facts instead of asking one obviously biased philosopher, Bodnar, who is also listed in one of the projects. The recipe is well-known: ask the one who says what you want to hear, don't bother if he is part of the plot.”

HARNAD:
It is not clear whether under these circumstances either PRO or DEN are a reliable source of facts.But is it obvious that if a philosopher is “listed” in one of the projects this means he is biased, or “part of the plot” (what plot?). Is this fact obvious in the same way that there has been “an obvious violation of the law” (CRIM)?

"MAGYAR":
“The evidence is entirely public, has been made so by the condemned press on the government's side. A move which the press on the left would never have made, as these facts are true but harmful to their favourite intellectuals, most of the time personal friends of the editors themselves. One should just think about the regular dinners Heller has with the editor of the "independent" Nepszabadsag.”

HARNAD:
The government-side press has been public about the alleged evidence of the alleged crime (PRO). That is undisputed. There is some difficulty, however, in following the logic of what follows: Should the non-government-side press (DEN) have accepted those allegations as proven? Should it have published an admission of guilt (CRIM)? Perhaps a disclosure of the cost of the dinners? What is the point?

"MAGYAR": “So, what Harnad and Bohannon say is just ignorance. They don't mention the money that was pocketed by these philosophers through contracts signed with themselves, with their very own businesses, etc. All these facts are public, including the amounts that landed in their hands. And at least Harnad should be able to read Hungarian...”

HARNAD:
It is not at all obvious to what extent these are either facts or public. But what is most non-obvious of all is whether they are crimes (CRIM), i.e., illegal. And if they are not illegal, whether they ought to be made illegal (MOOT) – or whether instead they were legitimate uses of the awarded funds to pay for salaries or the conduct of research, and simply became the object of complaints (COMP) from those who were not awarded funds. None of this is at all obvious, whether or not one reads Hungarian, and regardless of whom one listens to. One can nevertheless form one’s own provisional judgment, and that can indeed be based on something that is obvious: That there is no basis – obvious or subtle -- for concluding that any crime (CRIM) has been committed; and hence that those who argue that it is obvious that a crime has been committed (PRO) are obviously wrong. Their motive is unclear, but it is clear that the accused philosophers (and any others who become similar targets) need to be defended against such confident allegations of “obvious” criminality.

"MAGYAR":
“...especially if [Harnad] is organizing resistance against what? A legal investigation... obstructing justice? If the facts made public by "MAGYAR" Nemzet were false, there should have been a lot of legal cases initiated, but there are none. Why not if all these facts, unknown to these combative intellectuals here, are false?

HARNAD:
It is not clear whether Mr. "Magyar" is alleging that the drafters and the signatories of the Open Letter are obstructing justice. (If so, I don’t plan to try to sue him for libel!) As stated in the Open Letter, erroneous, hyperbolic and tendentious public assertions are made all the time in the media, worldwide, and are and should be ignored (especially when they are about (and by) researchers!). In Hungary today, though, it seems that certain kinds of tendentious public assertions (PRO) are not only given heed, but even acted upon (perhaps even encouraged) by the authorities. I know no reason not to have confidence in the freedom of the courts in Hungary; the grounds for confidence in the freedom of the press are perhaps not quite as firm. But is Mr. "Magyar" suggesting that if things are alleged in Magyar Nemzet that makes them facts? Or is it things that are alleged without a subsequent libel suit that thereby become facts?

"MAGYAR":
"So, contrary to Nyiri, we do know facts: stated by the press and undisputed by these philosophers. (By the way, there are several other projects and other businesses under investigation as well, not only philosophers' and historians'. So, watch out, there may be some other white-collar criminals needing your support.)”

HARNAD:
We would have to watch out indeed, if this were to become the way that facts are now determined in Hungary. Our Open Letter was not written to obstruct justice, but to try to preserve it – from this.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

[Note: This is a response to an anonymous posting to the ScienceInsider discussion forum. In Hungary, left-liberal critics are being systematically harassed in a smear campaign abetted by the Hungarian right-wing government. The ScienceInsider forum was intended to bring these tactics out into the open. Here is an instance where an anonymous poster tried such a smear tactic against me, suggesting that the reason I launched the Open Letter and campaign in support of the accused philosophers was for self-promotion, citing data on self-edits on my Wikipedia entry by way of incriminating evidence.]

I first posted the following to ScienceInsider, explaining why my reply would appear here rather than there:

For the reasons already stated in the Anonymity FAQ, I won't respond on Science Insider to Anonymous's enterprising attempt to put a sinister spin on trivial Wikipedia data. But for those for whom the nonsense (and mischief) is not already transparent, I have responded openly on Open Access Archivangelism.

I am rather grateful to Anonymous, however, for having so helpfully provided the world with this paradigmatic example "revealing the 'dynamics in Hungary'".

This is precisely the kind of tactic that the accused philosophers (and a growing number of other scholars and artists) are facing in Hungary today, but without the benefit of an open international forum to which their governmental accusers must answer for their conduct. (Hence the anonymity of Anonymous.)

And, yes, the "evidence" in the Hungarian Philosopher Affair really is all pretty much at the same level as this Wikipedia evidence, along with the attempt to give it a spin that makes it appear symptomatic of wrong-doing -- except that the philosophers are now facing Hungary's Prosecutor General on the basis of such accusations.

Apart from that, I refer Anonymous to the Anonymity FAQ.

(For Science Insider readers I must add, though, that not being the moderator of ScienceInsider discussion forum, I am alas powerless to prevent anonymous posters from continuing to try to turn it into a vehicle for exacting revenge on those who criticize and expose the very tactics that are being used in Hungary to exact revenge on the Government's critics and adversaries. But perhaps the exercise will still prove instructive, maybe even salutary.)

1. Most Wikipedia authors and editors are anonymous, or, rather, pseudonymous. My decision to use my real name as my Wikipedia login -- the one that permitted "Anonymous" to make his shocking discovery -- is, as far as I know, relatively rare on Wikipedia. I did it very deliberately from the outset in 2005, because (for many reasons) I am opposed to anonymous, unanswerable Wikipedia puttering.

2. As far as I know, most contemporary academics who have a Wikipedia page either manage their own page or have their students do it. But few use their own names as their Wikipedia logins.

3. Hence it would have been impossible for Anonymous to make any objective comparisons between the number of self-edits I make on my own entry and the number of self-edits other authors make on their own entries. His data are hence just empty numerology -- all the moreso since my Wikipedia entry is relatively tiny, and the 43 corrections and updates I've done since 2005 have been tinier still. (E.g., I today removed -- for the third time [right there that's already 3/43 of the total edits since 2005 that Anonymous has so helpfully counted for me!] -- a misattribution someone kept adding, wrongly crediting me with contributions to the work of my mentor.)

4. Anonymous's accusations about violating the Wikipedia rules on "Autobiographies" and "Conflict of Interest" are nonsense not only because (i) managing one's own Wikipedia entry is permissible and widely done, but because (ii) I reveal my identity openly, hence anyone in the (extremely officious!) ranks of Wikipedia's self-appointed editorial hierarchy could at any time have blocked me for "self-promotion" on my entry if I had ever done anything that looked like self-promotion across all those years:

"In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to remove mistaken or unreferenced out-of-date facts about yourself…. and so on."

5. In reality, my Wikipedia entry is extremely short, low-key and (if I may say so) modest, among entries of academics (i.e., those who bother to have a Wikipedia entry at all -- or bother with policing their entry if others have created one for them).

6. Not only is my number of self-edits on my Wikipedia entry actually quite low for a current item that has been up since almost the inception of Wikipedia, but I didn't even create my entry! I discovered it there one day in 2005 -- and as I recall it turned out to have been just a bowdlerized cut/paste of the bio from my university staff page, apparently up there since about 2003; so my first edit was to cut it down in size. I've mostly been cleaning up the rot that keeps accumulating across the years since I first discovered it; and I occasionally do a reference update, including updating the photo (the original one, if I recall -- perhaps Anonymous can go and check to correct me? -- had been placed there from an old gif found in Google images).

Now, when you are conducting an ad hoc smear campaign against someone you don't like and would love to discredit, you do the kind of Digging That Anonymous did; then you try to put the most sinister possible spin on whatever you think you've come up with (while claiming to just be reporting the objective facts); and if that fails, you get back to digging for and announcing something else. No target is immune to such a litany of innuendos; the charges are endless, and never admitted to have been refuted (like Freudian symptom-transfer, as soon as one fizzles, another one is launched to take its place, without acknowledgment, let alone apology), and it is never conceded that the whole process has been a farce, from beginning to interminable end, all in the service of relentless, malign ends.

And this is exactly the kind of thing the Hungarian government, its unidentified informants and sleuths, and the government-side press have been doing in their still-growing campaign selectively directed against the philosophers (and others) they don't like and are bent on punishing.

(What I encourage Anonymous To Do next is to go and check my research grants!)

---

[Anonymous has since posted on ScienceInsider again. Here we go again...]

---

The Doppelganger(s)
(1) First, please let me cheerily admit what I have never denied: I do indeed speak, read and write Hungarian! (It's just that I have a hunch that it might perhaps be more useful to keep this discourse in a language that all witnesses can understand…)

What I had cheerily denied (multiple times) was that I had ever before known (or known of) any of the accused scholars, or that any of them had previously known or contacted me, seeking help. I thereby had disappointingly to disconfirm the hopeful hypothesis of "Anonymous" (who was then going by the patriotic name of "Istvan Magyar" and apparently at a loss to fathom why else anyone could possibly have taken up the victims' cause) as to the real reason I had done so. But now at last Anonymous has astutely discovered my real reason: It was to enhance my Wikipedia profile!

(2) I would be no less cheery, though, if "Anonymous" were eventually to find a way to calm his impulse to further enhance my Wikipedia profile by posting my name quite so frequently in the ScienceInsider forum! After all, all those unearned bonus hits in which my name is lately luxuriating are really owing only to having to keep invoking the Anonymity FAQ in declining to respond on ScienceInsider to "Anonymous's" enterprising, persistent but somewhat distracting antics; after all, that's not the only thing Science Forum was created to bring out in the open…

Now a light-hearted hypothesis of my own: Since the "signature" of their tactics is so remarkably similar, would it not be an ironic coincidence if this decidedly "Anonymous" doppelganger turned out to be one and the same as that shadowy whistle-blower who had launched the entire philosopher affair with an anonymous police denunciation? Or are they just stylistic and ideological soul-mates?

What is the real head-shaker in all this is not that there exist mischievous malcontents like "Anonymous" in Hungary -- they alas flower aplenty, everywhere on the planet -- but that an entire government would stoop to making common cause with their likes.

---

[Double Trouble: "Magyar Istvan"'s back again...]

---

I solemnly promise that if Anonymous and "Istvan Magyar" reveal their true identity I will publicly apologize to them both for the insult of having suspected them to be one and the same scallywag. Alas, different IPs for anonymous posters won't quite do the disentangling trick. And with the abrupt termination of "Istvan Magyar"'s omnipresence on this forum mysteriously coinciding with Anonymous's debut, and only the charming style and somewhat inquisitorial slant perduring, one can hardly be blamed for thinking... (though my conscience is a little relieved upon hearing that "IM"/A is not a stranger to being ill-used in internet discussions). Otherwise, the Anonymity FAQ is all I can offer by way of trying to make amends for "Double Trouble"'s travails.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

HUNGARY funder-mandate

Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA)

Institution's/Department's OA Eprint Archives: [growth data]

Institution's/Department's OA Self-Archiving Policy:

All scientific publications resulting from support by an OTKA grant are required to be made available for free according to the standards of Open Access, either through providing the right of free access during publication or through depositing the publication in an open access repository. The deposit can be in any institutional or disciplinary repository, as well as in the Repository of the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences – REAL: http://real.mtak.hu/

Added by: Dr. Elod Nemerkenyi (Assistant for International Affairs) nemerkenyi.elod AT otka.hu on 22 Jul 2009

Copyright Regulation in Europe – An Enabling or Disabling Factor for Science Communication

Urheberrechtsregulierung als Ermöglichungs-bzw. als Verhinderungsfaktor für Wissenschaftskommunikation

European Network for Copyright in Support of Education
European Workshop Program
Nov. 14-15, 2008
Location: Heinrich-Böll-Foundation, Schumannstr. 8, Berlin-Mitte, Germany

Thursday – Nov. 13, 2008

21:00 – 22:30 Chimney talk : Jerzy Montag, MP,spokesman for law politics, BÜNDNIS90/DIE GRÜNEN (Green Party) in the German Parliament

Friday - Nov. 14, 2008

9:00 – 9:15 Ralf Fücks, Andreas Poltermann, Heinrich-Böll-Foundation
Welcome addresses, Introduction to the conference
9:15 – 9:30 All participants Introduction

Session 1: Copyright and science – Demands and objectives
Moderation: Rainer Kuhlen

9:30 – 10:15 Rainer Kuhlen, University of Konstanz (Germany)
Copyright and science – Demands and objectives

10:15 – 10:45 Gerhard Fröhlich, University of Linz (Austria)
Free copying or plagiarism?

10:30 – 11:00 Panel discussion:
Rainer Kuhlen, Gerhard Fröhlich, Stuart Taylor, The Royal Society (United Kingdom), Florin Filip, Academy of Romania (Romania), Agnès Ponsati, CSIC Library Network, Spanish National Research Council (Spain)

Session 2: Exceptions and limitations or a copyright blanket clause for science
Moderation: Wolf-Dieter Sepp

11:30 – 12:00 Lucie Guibault, University of Amsterdam (Netherlands)
A framework for an obligatory system of exceptions and limitations

12:00 – 12:30 Séverine Dusollier, University of Namur (Belgium)
A systematic approach to exceptions in the European Union

12:30 – 13:00 Panel discussion:
Lucie Guibault, Séverine Dusollier, María J. Iglesias, University of Namur (Belgium), Jaak Järv, Estonian Academy of Sciences (Estonia), Benjamin Bajon, Max-Planck-Institut für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs-und Steuerrecht (Germany)

Session 3: Open Access – An alternative to or a replacement for copyright
Moderation: Lucie Guibault

14:00 – 14:30 Stevan Harnad, UQAM (Canada) & University of Southampton (United Kingdom) (via teleconference)
Copyright Reform Should Not Be Made A Precondition For Mandating Open Access

14:30 – 15:00 Hélène Bosc, Euroscience Open Access Working (France)
Open access to the scientific literature: a peer commons open to the public

15:00 – 15:30 Panel discussion:
Stevan Harnad, Hélène Bosc, Rainer Kuhlen, Ji•i Rákosník, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (Czech Republic), Jaak Järv, Estonian Academy of Sciences (Estonia)

Session 4: The Green Paper "Copyright in the Knowledge Economy"
Moderation: Gerald Spindler, University of Göttingen (Germany)

16:00 – 16:30 Rainer Kuhlen, Information Science, University of Konstanz (Germany)
Introduction to Green Paper

16:30 – 18:00 Workshop:
Green Paper on "Copyright in the Knowledge Economy"; elaboration of a common statement

Saturday – Nov 15, 2008

Session 5: Science communication and collaboration
Moderation: Michael Seadle, Institute for Library and Information Science, HU Berlin

9:30 – 10:00 Paul Ayris (UK), UNICA Scholarly Communications Group
The future of scholarly publication

10:00 – 10:30 Panel discussion:
Paul Ayris, Gerhard Fröhlich, University of Linz (Austria), Ágnes Téglási, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Hungary), Rosa Nyárády, UNESCO chair in communication (Hungary), Ján Bako•, Slovak Academy of Sciences (Slovakia)

Session 6: Founding of the ENCES network: European Network for Copyright in support of Education and Science
Moderation: Rainer Kuhlen, University of Konstanz (Germany)

11:00 – 12:00 Workshop:
Green Paper "Copyright in the Knowledge Economy"; common statement and forming of ENCES ( = European Network for Copyright in support of Education and Science)