Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:25, 12 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)

Argumentative?

Hmmm, Zvika, you said the questions by Davkal I re-instated and the ones I asked of ScienceApologist were argumentative. Originally you framed it as fringe POV versus science POV- which would have been argumentative from the start. Can you tell us more about the vision you have here? I don't necessarily need to know, really. I suppose it must be the case with most interviews -I've never been interviewed before- that the interviewees think they know what questions need asking, and I'll stop asking questions if you want. I'm not sure I know why the questions are unclear, though. Your own question is very good, and also lends itself to a pretty short answer, perhaps a short paragraph of.

I'd love to get some questions from SA. FYI, Synchronicity is one of the things SA wouldn't ...ah... approve. As I write this, I am listening to the Highlander theme.

Davkal -SixHorseParley-, for all he does a lot of vandalism and trolling, is extremely educated on the issues here, which is one reason I re-instated his questions. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jay*Jay's response to your questions explains the issue very well, I think. Compare Davkal's question about ArbCom with JayJay's. JayJay's question gives the interviewee a chance to explain his opinion whereas Davkal's question attempts to get him annoyed. --Zvika (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)