Free Information #1

Website 1: http://www.plos.org/about/open-access/

PLOS argues for the freedom and open access of information to all people. PLOS argues that the freedom of information would be beneficial to people for all research purposes, while also shedding the outdated idea that people must pay to read all ideas. The argument here is about the outdatedness of making people pay to view online articles. While payment stands for books, when it actually costs most to print the book and get it to the people who are requesting it, this money is not necessary on the internet, making payment for reading online articles ridiculous. The author appeals to his audience by using fairly simple, common language and logic. Nothing in the article is hard to understand or a reach for any reader and the reader can easily follow the argument that paying for an article online is seemingly useless because it doesn't cost money to get the article into people's hands. The author also emphasizes the benefits of open access and readers always like hearing about the benefits of something. The ethos the author appeals to, the Creative Commons Attribution License, also helps convince the reader of his argument. The Creative Commons Attribution License is a specific type of copyright law that the website uses which allows the information on it to be free and open.

Website 2: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/

The author of this article, Stevan Harnad, is a massive supporter of open access to information. Harnad claims that information should be free for all people so they can use it and learn from it. Paying for information hurts rather than helps. Free information would benefit everyone, not just a select few. By stating that open access to information will help every single member of society, Harnad appeals to every single member of society, every single member of his audience. By stating that all audience members will benefit, including all of them, Harnad is appealing to all of them. The ethos of this author and website is that their entire website is based upon this idea of open access, so they know the benefits of open access because they have seen them.

Website 3: http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm

The article is written by Peter Suber and like the previous two it is in favor of open access to articles and information online. He has similar arguments to the previous two articles, that there are multiple benefits, particularly in the field of research, to open access. The information is copyrighted, of course, and the author must be given credit, as expected, but information is free to anyone who comes across it. He also focuses on the gold and green roads of open access and the minor difference between the two. Suber's introduction really aids in his appeal to his audience. He invites them to comment and suggest on the things he has posted about open access, mentally relaxing the reader before they delve into his article about open access. A relaxed reader is most likely to accept what they're reading. The reason a reader can trust Suber and relax about accepting his article is the ethos his work is established on, his own job description. Suber says he is director of the Harvard Open Access Project, Research Professor of Philosophy at Earlham College, and a few other titles. These are all credible titles that make the reader more inclined to believe him.

Returning back to chapter 18 of the packet, which primarily deals with the common knowledge in and outs of plagiarism, the argument it makes against plagiarism works very simply and logically, just like the three above websites. The chapter and the articles above don't leave much room for debate or controversy because their arguments are solid, convincing, and based in easy-to-follow logic. None are particularly more convincing than others because they are all based in the idea of logical arguments.