Caveat Lector

Walt called me out in the latest Cites and Insights for a comment I left at T. Scott’s blog. I reproduce Walt’s comment, with its quotation of my comment, in full:

I do consider Dorothea Salo a friend but her comment on Scott’s post left me lukewarm:

Um, the identity of the AAP’s PR guy didn’t bother you? Or the particular tactics he was endorsing?

I wasn’t thrilled by Smith’s presentation either, I may say; it was at the very least unacceptably racist. But a thoroughly tasteless analogy is still a bit less than an open lie like “OA = government censorship” in my book.

“Wasn’t thrilled” is a little short of the flat denunciation Smith’s presentation calls for. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Walt’s right. I was wrong, for more reasons than Walt even knows about.

Reason 1, I hadn’t even done due diligence; I didn’t read anything more than T. Scott’s blogpost, and he (as is his way) had been fairly pianissimo in his recounting. I didn’t realize that Smith extended the metaphor ad far-beyond-nauseam; I thought it had been one quick sentence. I reacted far too fast, and that’s nobody’s fault but mine.

Reason 2, what Richard Smith said (now that I know what he said) was wrong, deeply wrong, well beyond rhetorical excess into flagrant offense. I do understand intellectually why he picked the slavery metaphor; the superficial similarities are tempting indeed, and (being more than a little given to rhetorical excess myself) I know how grabbing for a quick emotional response can be a useful communication tool.

But some lines you damned well don’t cross if you want to be considered a decent human being, and Richard Smith crossed one. If I rip on Michael Gorman for calling hip-hop aficionados stupid, I have zero excuse for giving Richard Smith a pass. Mea maxima culpa.

Reason 3, I have an obvious interest in smart, articulate arguments for my side of the OA debate. Insofar as Richard Smith smeared us with mud—and he did, no question—he didn’t do me or OA any favors, and I didn’t do myself or OA any favors by letting it pass. Quis custodiet? I wasn’t, and I should have been.

I know why my knee jerked the way it did, for the little that’s worth. T. Scott has a talent for assuming the worst of OA advocates (I mean, look at the post title: “Sinking to a New Low.” What were the old lows, pray?), and for downplaying the very real and cogent reasons libraries have to fear, distrust, and (yes) hate big for-profit scholarly publishers. I guessed wrongly that he was doing the same dance again.

(I’m mendacious because yes, I’ll work for the elimination of six-month embargoes after they were forced on me in the first place? All-righty then. I’m mendacious. Just please let me tell my part of it: that although I hope and strongly believe that scholarly-publishing business models based on access limitation are doomed in the medium- to long-term, and I will enthusiastically help doom them—partly by my own writing, speaking, and political efforts, but mostly by helping provide workable alternatives to them—I also accept embargoes as a rough-and-ready transition tool in the short-term. I’m a practical repo-rat. I know it’s the best we’re going to get right now. It’s just not a stable or especially enviable compromise.)

Moreover, the equation drawn in T. Scott’s post about Smith set my teeth on edge: a one-off offensive analogy on the part of a single person (or, it’s fair to say since Smith runs PLoS, a single OA publisher) is somehow morally equivalent to a calculated, bought-and-paid-for campaign of lies and smears by a trade organization representing a whole host of publishers. I still think I’m right about that at least. They aren’t morally equivalent, though they’re both despicable.

But that isn’t what I said in my comment. It’s just l’esprit d’escalier, what I should have said. What I did say was wrong, and I’m sorry for it, little though that apology may weigh given that it wasn’t offered until after Walt called me on the carpet. I will do my best not to be so stupid again.

My sincere (and public) thanks to Walt for what he said. I don’t want to hitch myself to Richard Smith’s wagon if I can avoid it, and far be the day when I lose my temper with a friend merely for pointing out my mistakes.