It's much worse...
"And yet, if the last decades of open-source software have taught us anything, it is that simple availability does not incentivise investigation."
You don't have to look at open source for that, just look at much more substantial examples. How about projects which are basically build upon pseudo science and which can be proven to be bollocks by merely applying some simple mathematics on them.
For example: a project which will allegedly solve the worlds water scarcity by extracting it out of the air. People made a project, a nice presentation with featured unrealistic claims ("it'll easily extract 40liters of water per day") and as a result they managed to gain a lot of funding, including government funding. Even though it can be proven that the whole concept is flawed and won't work.
Project even made the news and hardly any reported bothered to also look at this from a scientific perspective or to get someone to do that for him.
This is about something in plain sight, fully out in the open, yet people still manage to allow themselves to be conned by it.
So then someone things that algorithms need to be more transparent? Uhm, right...