| Revision as of 07:55, 11 March 2008 editZvika (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,937 edits →Agreement← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:17, 11 March 2008 edit undoZvika (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,937 edits →Publicity: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| :::Each. --] (]) 07:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | :::Each. --] (]) 07:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Publicity == | |||
| If any of you are aware of noticeboards or wikiprojects that might be interested in this interview, please post a link to ] so we can get a good selection of questions relevant to the subject. Thanks. --] (]) 15:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:17, 11 March 2008
Agreement
I cannot represent the fringe POV. I can only represent my own POV, which is nuanced, and does not conform to the views of other people who edit fringe articles, nor to the views which "skeptical" editors have of it. I don't subscribe to the division of fringe versus mainstream science at all, although I admit that has been a problem. I don't believe this debate, in general, centers around fringe versus science (nor do I believe that fringe = science). I said I had some surprises. This is one part. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- If Martin is unable/unwilling to participate in this interview/discussion/debate, I will gladly face any other "opponent" or will do the interview by myself if need be. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I rather think that if you get someone dumb enough to "representing the alternative/fringe POV" on WP, you will end up with someone who knows nothing about WP. WP is not about any particular POV. This isn't a boxing match, but something happening in the real world, where things are not that cut-and-dried. Nor does SA represent the mainstream scientific POV except in the mythos created around this debate: he represents, rather, the POV which it is assumed scientists would have if only they had studied the matter, or he represents the skeptical POV. That isn't mainstream science. And since I don't usually hold the fringe POV or a POV which is an alternative to the scientific one, this framing of the issue would at best produce more myth-making. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There will be two parallel interviews of ScienceApologist and Martinphi, discussing issues which surrounding the community debate over how to present fringe topics on Misplaced Pages. User:Zvika will be the interviewer.
——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I guess you're right: "User:X representing the Y POV" is a poor choice of words. I've changed the wording per your suggestion. Is that OK? --Zvika (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- It looks great (; When you say "(the goal is that the two interviews will be approximately 1500 words long)" do you mean each, or both together? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Each. --Zvika (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Publicity
If any of you are aware of noticeboards or wikiprojects that might be interested in this interview, please post a link to User:Zvika/Interview so we can get a good selection of questions relevant to the subject. Thanks. --Zvika (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)