User talk:Zvika/Interview

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^phi ☎ 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^phi ☎ 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 Wikipedia. User:Zvika will be the interviewer.

——Martin^phi ☎ 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^phi ☎ 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^phi ☎ 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)

Yes, I see what you're saying. I would personally rather deal with questions like I gave to SA- they give more room to address the issues in my opinion. I don't consider them hostile or loaded, really, and even if they are all the answer has to be is "that's not what I think," and saying that makes the answer more memorable. I don't think such questions put the interviewee at a disadvantage, rather the opposite. Go ahead and ask me why I'm such an uncivil paranormal true-believing, ArbCom snookering, wikilawyering anti-science POV pusher. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Davkal is essentially banned, in that he's indefinitely blocked, no one is willing to unblock him, and he constantly abuses socks. I think that participation from such effectively banned users should be strongly discouraged in any form, and probably reverted on sight, as per WP:BAN. Acting as a proxy for a banned user is also to be strongly discouraged. Giving him recognition only encourages him to continue evading his ban. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, I just don't want to deal with that issue. I agree he deserves to be banned per WP rules, but I'm not going to take responsibility for enforcing it, nor for disallowing interesting questions because of the source. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not under any obligation to enforce the ban yourself, and if a question is truly interesting then it's worth pondering regardless of the source. There is a line between posing interesting questions and assisting a banned user in carrying on one of his pet grudges, and I'd just rather we pay attention to that line. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I generally think that Davkal has been helping. These are not questions which need necessarily make it into the final interview. But the thing in this environment is, that it is utterly unbelievable to someone who hasn't seen it for himself. Davkal's questions at the least help inform Zvika. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about the helpfulness of his sockpuppet's commentary. We should not being encouraging banned users to create sockpuppets and jump right back into their old pet disputes. Please don't encourage or enable continuing ban evasion. MastCell ^Talk 05:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Zvika, you might consider a question on civility. SA recently said:

It may be that a majority of users agree with the particular arbitrary nature of civility here on Wikipedia, but it is still arbitrary. I will live with WPCIV because the community imposes it and I am outnumbered. But I will not sing its praises to it just to make you feel better or make your assumed job easier. I still think the entire concept needs to be trashed and will happily explain to anyone why I think so. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[1]

I'm not the person who gets to decide what is an is not okay at Wikipedia. See consensus. I'm fine with incivility. I love it. However, I will use an opponents incivility to get them banned if I have to. That's Machiavellian of me. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[2]

My views are pretty well put in my recent edits to this- note that others have been editing as well since I stopped. My views are reflected in this version [3]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is this to be an interview between Zvika and JayJay or between Scienceapologist and Martinphi? Just wondering considering the extensive waste of verbage so far. If so, when will it actually start? So far it is about as boring as a blank TV screen. Peter morrell 07:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the information at the top of the main page. That will tell you where to find the questions Zvika has assigned each of the interviewees. They haven't posted answers yet; they have til Tuesday. By the way, I disagree strongly that a discussion attempting to clarify the issues is a "waste of verbiage." Woonpton (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Peter, it is pretty boring so far. Could it be a form of Zugzwang? 66.30.77.62 (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've paid good money, we're in the bear-pit, we have front-row seats, waiting for the 'big fight' and all we have seen thus far is some feeble argument between the skinny refs :) which might just be posturing while we wait for the action to start, now delayed until Tuesday. So, yes, I do reckon that is a bit of a disappointment. On the other hand, it could be a deliberate tactic to stoke up some pre-match tension...in which case bravo! Peter morrell 15:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing both contenders will be on their best behavior on the interview pages but the actual brawling will happen on interview Talk pages. 50 wikidollars says one of them gets a 72 hr block by Friday. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet you 50 real dollars that it's not me (unless this is somehow against WP rules). Got PayPal? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My next block is scheduled to be at least 96-hours. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Which no doubt one of his pet admins will shorten to.... hmmmm.... shall we say 12 hrs? [4] allowing him to comment another day, another block and good things seem to happen when I get blocked. Happy? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[5] 66.30.77.62 (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh (;. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've finished answering the questions. I'm not going to post it until the last possible moment. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. If you don't want to give the other a chance to have the last word, so to speak, you can email the answers to me. I promise not to post them before I get both responses. There's no reason to delay the whole thing. --Zvika (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Zvika I can understand your frustration, but I can also understand SA's reluctance, given the "gotcha" attitude that seemed to be motivating so many of the proposed questions. I am a new editor who has been waiting for Wikipedia to take a stand on some of these questions before I commit myself to spending any time here, because I think the present atmosphere of differing interpretations of policy ensures frustration and fighting wherever science and fringe topics intersect, a climate I have no interest in subjecting myself to. So while it seems some bloodthirsty spectators view this as purely some gladiator game staged for their amusement, my view is that Wikipedia continues to ignore this very real problem at its own peril. Yes, please get the answers by email and post them together; that might take some of the blood sport out of the whole spectacle. Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I've posted a note to this effect on both interviewees' talk pages. --Zvika (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Was wondering how this little problem would be dealt with. I'll send it late tomorrow, unless I really feel it's totally finished earlier. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

NEXT!!!!

Well, Zvika, would you be willing to host a page where people can post if they want to ask us followup questions? If the interview gets broad enough readership, we should get some interesting stuff. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait until the interview is over and see what happens. I do not particularly want to continue playing policeman on this topic. --Zvika (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're playing policeman? I hadn't noticed (-: The entire community needs to have this debate. It is legit, and there are real issues which need to be settled once and for all. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, I'm not quite sure what you mean by me hosting a page. I'm not paying for the bandwidth, you know. So far I have tried to keep insinuating, unfriendly, and argumentative questions off the interview pages while including the many good ideas for questions that people proposed. It has been taking quite a lot of my time. In the past, I usually steered away from such contentious issues, and many articles on my watchlist (not to mention Real Life^TM) are waiting for my return. That said, if you guys want to continue discussing this, then of course that's all for the better. I think, though, that my job will be done when this interview is "published" in one way or another. --Zvika (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure we can find a neutral forum if people want that. I hope it hasn't been too much of a trial for you. People here not nice... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting but exhausting experience. The way both sides had confidence in my objectivity was flattering, though. --Zvika (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you have deserved it. To explain, though, both sides are 100% sure that any neutral party will believe what they have to say. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that this interview and article could be a very important event in this discussion/debate. It will hopefully make more people aware of the problem. It could lead to a more involved dialogue, and more ideas. We might have a wider forum, like an expanded and more organized form of the Raymond Arritt Expert Withdrawal pages, with more participants.

If Wikipedia is to move beyond its current status as a sort of novelty and really have a chance at being a reasonably reliable reference work, addressing a wide sweep of human knowledge, then this sort of issue has to be sorted out. I think it can be, but it will require some thought and planning and testing and organization and management. Just carrying along without any plan and doing what we always did might not get us where we want to go.

If one looks at the history of Wikipedia, various planks of policy have been laid down at different times. Policy has changed to address needs that became clearer at certain stages of the enterprise. This might be another time to change or sharpen our policies in certain areas. Or even to formalize techniques for developing and testing new policies. --Filll (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what I understand of what you say here. I won't argue for the adoption of SPOV over NPOV, but I will support a community adoption of such a policy, if and only if it is clearly and fully stated. I object only to the POV pushing of this policy into articles when WP policy is different. I also object to the equation of NPOV and SPOV- I think you will agree -in the end- that they are not the same, and I think that if SPOV is to become WP policy, you will have to argue openly again for it. WEIGHT will have to be adjusted, as I explain in the interview, to favor mainstream science. I will always object to bare assertions of fact which are unattributed and/or unsourced and/or unscientific- some examples of which I also gave. But I do not really think you would argue that such statements are the way to go. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)