This is not particularly surprising. When the transaction cost to read an article is lower, there's less "need" to use the work you've uncovered. By analogy, Walter Murch says in his book, "In the Blink of an Eye" that film editors need to avoid "seeing around the edge of the frame" - when the editor knows the hard work that went into getting a particular shot to work, the 'sweat investment', it's harder to discard that shot because it feels like a waste -- even if that's not the best shot to use. Similarly, my investment into getting an article means I'm more likely to use it the harder it was to obtain. By decreasing that cost, writers can be more 'objective' about what's actually useful.<p>Second, because I can easily get a different article, if the one I have doesn't say quite what I need, I can find something else.
Leading to more herding and informational cascades (<a href="http://www.info-cascades.info/" rel="nofollow">http://www.info-cascades.info/</a>) wherein individuals cease to follow their own thoughts and instead rush to verify what they have heard through (in this case) the academic grapevine.<p>Nassim Nicholas Taleb also addresses this topic in some depth in his book "The black Swan" (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly-Improbable/dp/1400063515" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly-Improbable/dp...</a>).
This is an interesting counter-point to another submission from today: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=249346" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=249346</a>
Why, when I click that link, do I have to click "back" 4 times in order to get back to HN? (Firefox 2, winxp)<p>Are they being rude by doing a bunch of redirects (and making it harder for me to leave) or is there something else going on?