User:Zvika/Interview

This is the page for coordinating the upcoming interview of User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist concerning science-related articles on Wikipedia.

Ground rules
There will be two parallel interviews of ScienceApologist and Martinphi, discussing issues which surround the community debate over how to present fringe topics on Wikipedia. User:Zvika will be the interviewer.

Questions can be proposed below by any interested party. Of these, 6-7 questions will be selected by Zvika and placed in a subpage of this page. The interviewees will be given ample time (say, 3-4 days?) to post their responses on that subpage. The interviewees are asked to respond in a polite and peaceful manner. Subsequently, Zvika may ask some clarification questions, and may edit the answers for length (the goal is that each interview will be approximately 1500 words long). When the interview is complete, it will be published in the Signpost or some similar public location. Discussion concerning the interview can take place in the matching talk page, but the interview itself will not be further modified.

Martinphi and ScienceApologist, if you agree, please sign here to indicate your acceptance of the procedure:


 * ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The interview
I would like to thank everyone who contributed questions. They all raised interesting issues, many of which were unknown to me when I undertook this task. It was very difficult to choose a small number of questions out of the dozens proposed. In the end, some of the choices were arbitrary, but I believe that to reach a larger audience, we need to keep the discussion short.

The questions themselves can now be found in User:Zvika/Interview/Martinphi and User:Zvika/Interview/ScienceApologist. These will also be the pages where Martinphi and ScienceApologist post their responses. Subsequently, I will integrate the responses into a coherent parallel interview and will look for an appropriate community-wide venue to publicize the result; hopefully this will be the Wikipedia Signpost. --Zvika (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Zvika, please look at the diff in the civility question to MP. Is this the diff you mean, because in it east is taking a shot at Anthon01 over sock puppetry? Jay*Jay (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think this is the diff I want (the second part of it though). I was referring to the sentence: "admins will enforce civility with blocks, which is good - however they hit and run: they take no action with regards to the violations of NPOV, RS, V, UNDUE, FRINGE, TE, DE, SOCK, etc. that led to the incivil outburst." I think you were the one who pointed me to it originally. --Zvika (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you for your efforts on the interview and say that I think you have done well with the questions. My ArbCom one got picked (I know I shouldn't be excited, but I am!) and the use of east's comment is appreciated, as I'm curious about Martin's response. I hope you won't mind me observing that the WP:WEIGHT one is a little slanted towards SA's POV, but I doubt Martin will mind. Overall, it'll be very interesting to see what they say - and good luck with the editing / integrating to follow. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I misread it with all the red - I hadn't noticed that he took a shot and made that comment at the same time.


 * Well thank you for the compliment :) I don't think the question is particularly slanted. I truly think that there is a huge variety of interpretations of that clause, and that there is a resulting difference in the vision that different people have for articles like creationism. This is one point that I'd like to bring out in the interview: that NPOV is not always as well-defined as you might think. I don't want to influence the interview too much so I won't say what I think the responses will be, but I don't think the question is unfair. --Zvika (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, the compliment was deserved and well-earned. Re:WEIGHT, I don't think the question is unfair but I do think there is a slant - looking at Expert Withdrawal, arguments have been advanced as to the applicability of the part quoted, and having the quote in the question suits SA but may not suit the line MP may choose to take.  Anyway, will be interesting to watch.  Since I'm not a fan of tea, do any of your user pages come equipped with popcorn? :P Jay*Jay (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The results are in
The results for the two interviews can now be found on the pages User:Zvika/Interview/Martinphi and User:Zvika/Interview/ScienceApologist. Sometime in the next few days, I will join the two into what I hope will be a single, coherent parallel interview, and try to get it published on the next edition of the Signpost. --Zvika (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I purposely avoided being part of this process until now, such as reading the preliminary material or proposing questions. I did this because I have been quite visible in this dispute, and I wanted to see what would happen if I left it alone. However, I have now read the rough drafts of the interviews, and I have to say I am very impressed. Zvika, you have done a brilliant job here. Hopefully these two can be boiled down to just the most succinct nuggets. This is an incredibly important issue, and I think you have captured a big part of the difficulty with your two interviews. This is great stuff, and I congratulate everyone who was involved in a job well done.--Filll (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed questions
The interview has now been completed. Naturally, further modifications to this section will not affect the interview questions.

Questions for both interviewees

 * What are your jobs and affiliations in real life? What degrees do you have from which institutions? Why did you get involved with Wikipedia? What drew you to controversial topics related to science/pseudoscience/the paranormal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 10 March 2008, 18:44 (UTC)
 * WP policies give editors absolute anonymity if they so desire, and says that edits should be judged based on merit, not on who posted them. Therefore, I would pose this an an open question such as "Please introduce yourself. Who are you? Why did you get involved with Wikipedia? What drew you to controversial topics related to science/pseudoscience/the paranormal?" This will let each interviewee decide how much to reveal. --Zvika (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What are the origins and underlying causes of the so-called 'fringe wars' on Wikipedia?
 * What is pseudoscience? How should Wikipedia report on it?
 * Is WP:CIV being emphasized - at the expense of NPOV?
 * What makes a source reliable and verifiable when dealing with extraordinary claims?
 * How is NPOV applied when describing subjects that run counter to scientific explanations of reality?
 * Is there an existing Wikipedia article which you feel serves as a 'model' example of correct (re FRINGE, NPOV, WEIGHT, etc) treatment of a fringe subject?
 * 66.30.77.62 (talk)


 * What is your interpretation of NPOV and specifically WEIGHT in cases where POVs departing from the scientific mainstream have many proponents? For example, in your opinion, what would be the correct structure of the article on Young Earth creationism? --Zvika (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In a recent AN/I thread, east.718 commented that: " [A] dmins will enforce civility with blocks, which is good - however they hit and run: they take no action with regards to the violations of NPOV, RS, V, UNDUE, FRINGE, TE, DE, SOCK, etc. that led to the incivil outburst. I am guilty of this too. It would be more helpful if we struck the root of the problem, squashing the civility issue as ancillary." To what extent (if any) does this comment apply to the contentious areas of WP in which you edit? Jay*Jay (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ArbCom have made decisions which relate to some of the problem areas under discussion, in cases including (but not limited to) Pseudoscience, Paranormal, Martinphi-ScienceApologist, and Matthew Hoffman. Comment on the role of ArbCom decisions and actions or inactions in ameliorating or exacerbating the problems relating to contentious articles.  Jay*Jay (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What methods do you use to distinguish between accurate summarization and cherry-picking in a heterogeneous body of literature? That is, if some studies say X but others say Y, how do you assure yourself that your edits fairly represent the field as a whole? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Practical: Do you feel editor groups (cabals) at Wikipedia prevent you from expressing your point of view in articles?
 * 2) Wiki-Cultural: If one editor group or cabal had more members who shared a point of view than another (more fringe editors vs. science editors for example) would that popularity difference a) be considered reflective of society as a whole, and b) be relevant to WP:WEIGHT?
 * 3) A recent study from Rice University found that about two-thirds of scientists believe in God. Granted that scientific models of existence do not support God, how would you interpret that study as a source if you were editing the God article and had to state the scientific consensus on whether God exists? Is it a fringe theory in science that God exists?
 * 4) The study also found that 38 percent of natural scientists said they do not believe in God, while only 31 percent of social scientists do not believe. Not related to the study necessarily, but which group, natural or social scientists, have more weight in statements concerning science in general, and why?
 * 5) Same as the previous question, but adding an assumption that there are more social scientists than natural scientists (assumption because I don't know the actual ratio), would a bigger number of social scientists mean they have more weight in statements concerning science in general?
 * 6) There are more non-scientists than scientists in the world. 73 percent of the US population holds some sort of paranormal belief. Are paranormal beliefs therefore not fringe? If defined as fringe because science doesn't support these beliefs, which group holds more weight at Wikipedia, scientists or the general population?
 * 7) Is there a difference between the skeptical point of view and the scientific point of view? Please describe the differences, if any.
 * 8) When editing "fringe" articles, which is more important to you, preventing pov-pushing or well-written prose?
 * 9) Do you believe WP:IAR is valid in content disputes?
 * 10) What one rule (existing or your own) would you impose to accomplish your goals at Wikipedia? -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 09:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the role of mainstream science in responding to/investigating fantastic, fringe, paranormal, or other claims that run counter to current scientific explanations of reality? 66.30.77.62 (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a definable boundary between what is and what is not truly scientific, and if so can you define it? Is this boundary culturally determined and thus moveable as time and discoveries progress, or rather is it fixed, absolute and objective? Peter morrell 12:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You have both been blocked several times. Why do you think this happened? Do you think your blocks were justified? If you could turn back time, would you act differently? --Zvika (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The ultimate goal of Wikipedia is not to be a battleground or debate forum for conflicting worldviews, but to produce a respectable and useful reference work. An overly credulous presentation of fringe or pseudoscientific topics hinders progress toward this goal, as does an overly rigid insistence on excluding minoritarian views. Where do you see the balance between these poles at present, and how can it be improved without overcompensating in the opposite direction? MastCell Talk 18:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "an overly rigid insistence on including minoritarian views," don't you? --Zvika (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I meant to emphasize that neither extreme is desirable, and that rigidly excluding fringe or minoritarian views on general principles actually makes the encyclopedia less... encyclopedic. The goal, in my mind at least, should be a balance where we cover fringe/minority views proportionately and without hostility, but also without the promotional or extremely credulous tone which many such entries acquire. Am I making sense? MastCell Talk 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Question for both. On the ‘Expert Withdrawal’ page, the main problem being discussed has been characterized by the majority of editors there as pro-science versus anti-science. The “pro-science” editors arguing that they are trying to defend Wiki against a rising tide of pseudoscience and anti-science POV pushers (thus the call for a strike and such like). In a recent dispute which took place on the Wiki Project Plants page , however, a number of not-previously involved scientists (botanists) were highly critical of these same “pro-science” editors, and some went as far as to call them “fundamentalists”. How do you account for what happened in this case, and what, if anything, does it say about the pro/anti-science dichotomy that is said to lie behind this whole dispute.SixHorseParley (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC) &mdash; sockpuppet of banned User:Davkal.


 * What you're getting at here is rather dangerous, as it would require talking about the difference betwee scientists, skeptics, and pseudoskeptics and maybe debunkers and scientism. It would require taking a position on whether SA's group falls into any of these categories.  I would hope that a question along these lines would at least use those words, so I would not have to be the one to bring them up. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * O yeah, that is most definately Davkal in his "Number 48" mode. Shot info (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have studied the 'expert withdrawal' page carefully, and have participated in that discussion occasionally, and I can't agree with the characterization that the problem has been framed by the majority there as pro-science vs anti-science. I just skimmed through the entire discussion again; it's very long (60 pages printed) and found only a few occurrences of "pro-science" or "anti-science." In my contributions I have referred to a rational/scientific worldview vs an anti-rational worldview. Among the many contributors to that discussion from the rational/scientific worldview, I don't see a unified view; I disagree with as many as I agree with.  As for "SA's group" I have no idea what that means. SA has not been very visible on that page, if he's contributed there at all, and if he has a "group" I'm not aware of it. My point here is that I hope Zvika will avoid questions that attempt to divide and polarize and to rehash old arguments, in favor of questions that attempt to get at the root of the problem in a neutral manner, because I think this is a fundamental question whose answer will determine Wikipedia's ultimate success or failure:  when rationality and irrationality collide, which side will Wikipedia choose to back?  I hope the questions and answers here will lay out the positions well enough that the community can make an informed decision on the question. Thank you.Woonpton (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What evidence would another editor need to show you to convince you that a source, which backs your position, is not actually reliable enough to use as a citation? Ante  lan  talk  01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor recently commented that those arguing for civility are not as intelligent as those who may ignore the policies…can both editors comment on this idea.

Einstein's strength was thinking out side the boundaries of conventional science as noted by Steven Hawking in a recent interview, as was Galileo. The history of science is a history of imagination and invention for example as in medicine. Is it possible that the so-called fringe sciences today are tomorrow’s conventional sciences? How does one distinguish today what is mainline tomorrow, and are attempts to delineate science, fringe science, and pseudoscience in Wikipedia, artificial and problematic given this history of science, and given what we don’t know about the future.Comment from both editors.(olive (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Given an effect or theory that is not currently accepted by most scientists, but has some proponents, the WP article on the subject often attracts both "believers" and "skeptics". It seems to me that as a general rule the former stick with articles more steadily and persistently, while the latter contribute more sporadically.  Do you agree that such an asymmetry exists?  If so, do you think it presents a problem? Rracecarr (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions for Martinphi

 * Do you feel your reputation as a fringe advocate is inaccurate or unfair? 66.30.77.62 (talk)


 * If no acceptable sources can be found for the scientific objections to a claim which is important in a pseudoscience fringe / pseudoscience field (for example, because the application of accepted scientific principles results in the claim being considered unworthy of investigation), how should the claim be described in the wiki-article on that field? NB: I think the sense of this question is what I want to propose, but I'm not sure it is yet formulated as a neutral question.  Suggestions for alternative wordings welcome. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you mean, but can you give an example? --Zvika (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Zvika, no I can't, for two reasons. I am certain that I have seen this come up, but I can't remember where it was.  It was a case with a pseudoscientific claim that I thougt was absurd, but no one had been able to find an acceptable source that explained the flaws in the claim from a scientific perspective - and there was an on-going talk page debate about how this problem should be handled.  The more I thought about, the more I realised that I could easily explain why the claim would not be consider worth testing, and why it was flawed, but that I could only do so by bringing together a couple of fundamental scientific laws / principles - which is prohibited on-wiki under WP:SYNTH.  As such, the only WP:RS that is ever likely to emerge is something written to refute pseudoscientific claims.  I don't know how this sort of situation should be handled on-wiki, which is my motivation for asking the question.  My second reason is that I don't want to direct the question to any specific example - and thus to focus it on the merits in that single case - but rather to the general problem of NPOV discussion of claims which would be dismissed by scientists as unworthy of investigation and thus where acceptable source material for the scientific view may be lacking.  Does this make it clearer?  Jay*Jay (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That reminds me somewhat of the claims regarding Electronic voice phenomena. Might that be what you were thinking of? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK... I will see if I can formulate this so that people understand what it's about, but without referring to anything too specific. --Zvika (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Water memory might be a good example. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Or geopathic theory. Hal peridol (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know EVP, and this question does apply. It's a good question, though it would save me some words (and thus give me more space to say interesting things) if you'd say "fringe" instead of "pseudoscience."  Saying pseudoscience like that means I either have to ignore the issue, or go and discuss demarcation. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if I do ultimately recall the specific talk page which prompted this question, I will not identify it here, because it would draw attention away from the importsnt issue - the general case - and instead onto the specifics of that single case.
 * Martin, I don't really believe that what you say is correct, because the question is formulated for the general case. Thus, it allows the supposition that there exists an article relating to a field which would be widely accepted to fall within the category of pseudoscience - it seems to me that this is only problematic if you dsipute that there is such a thing as pseudoscience.  Having said that, I see no harm in the question being modified to refer to a "fringe / pseudoscience field" if such a modification would address your concern. Jay*Jay (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to below, carried to this section to keep things together: Jay Jay, I thought your question was very good, and at most needed a slight tweak. If I thought it was "similarly biased" it was probably because I didn't see my own questions as very biased, since SA has said these things in the past.  I don't really mind loaded questions, but in this case I thought it might tighten the interview up if "fringe" were substituted for "pseudoscience."  But it is a very good question.  (—— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We are going to have to agree to disagree on the bias in your question - because if I were Zvika, there would be no chance I would ask your question below. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That wasn't really the point- not all questions are to be asked, but nevertheless inform the questioner. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to just above: Jay Jay, yes, I could answer the question on the assumption that it is pseudoscience, and that would be ok. Pseudoscience is a much narrower field than fringe, because it is confined to stuff which pretends to be science, and in this case it is restricted to "obvious pseudoscience" such as Time cube, per the ArbCom on Pseudoscience. So the question is very narrow in terms of the articles it applies to.  If we had sources enough to say it was pseudoscience, we'd have scientific -or at least reliable- sources on it!  (I think this explains things, but I'm tired...)  Nevertheless, I doubt I should have a great deal of say over the questions other people ask, should I? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point on scope is reasonable. I would not base my views on what constitutes "pseudoscience" and "fringe" on ArbCom rulings, but for on-wiki purposes I now believe that the "fringe / psuedoscience" formulation is preferable, and I have made the relevant adjustment above. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As for having views on questions, it's a case-by-case issue. I'm actually feeling a little excited by the prospect that maybe one of *my* questions (or dare I say even more than one) might be chosen - not really sure why that is, but that's how I am feeling. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When one has done well, one tends to know it (—— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What is your opinion of ScienceApologist?

Questions for ScienceApologist
-Do you feel your reputation as a science advocate is inaccurate or unfair? 66.30.77.62 (talk)


 * What is your opinion of MartinPhi?

Questions by Martinphi

What is your main objection to the decision of the Paranormal ArbCom?

Many fringe topics, such as Remote viewing are under the auspices of the field of Parapsychology. You have argued that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. What is your reaction to the ArbCom decision which states:

It seems to me, that as Marcello Truzzi, one of the founders of CSICOP/CSI stated, science must investigate claims before rejecting them. Indeed, this is one of the fundamental principles of scientific skepticism. You have rejected this principle on your userpage. However, this principle is even in CSI's charter: “[do] not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examine them objectively and carefully.” Would you like to explain your rejection of this principle of scientific skepticism? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Martinphi, these questions are argumentative, not to mention long. Please try to keep the questions simple and to phrase them so that someone (like me) who does not know all about the previous discussions which took place can still understand what is being asked. --Zvika (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that such questions give much more room for productive answers. I would certainly welcome them in my own case.  SA is right that in certain venues hard-hitting direct speech is much more productive, and if we only have 1500 words, I want to get as much said as possible, not to mention entertain the reader well.  Anyway, people were describing this as a steel cage etc., so I thought the questions were pretty tame (:  If you don't even want these questions in the running, feel free to remove them.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Martinphi, the problem with this question is that you have answered it in asking it. You have stated that SA has criticised parapsychology as pseudoscience, which makes the overall direction of his response to the question obvious.  It is an invitation to criticise ArbCom in general and the drafter of the quote in particular.  The question is not open, in that it does not allow SA to respond to what he views as the important aspects of that case, but rather it forces him to respond along a pre-chosen path.  In my view, it is a question that will generate a lot of heat, but not a lot of light.  Having said that, I strongly agree that we need a question on the influence of ArbCom and its decisions.  Jay*Jay (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What's more, this is just Martin parroting a banned user. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a follow-up question for ScienceApologist: have you stopped beating your wife? MastCell Talk 18:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ech, you see what I have to put up with, even from admins. These are potential questions.  I would think that the second question would be asked depending on how he answered the first (First = What is your main objection to the decision of the Paranormal ArbCom?).  And Jay Jay, you asked a similar loaded question above, using the word "pseudoscience," though a good question overall.  I was not parroting Davkal, rather, I put his two questions back in, because they are good ones to add to the pot, even if they aren't asked.  And one of the main themes has been, that editors like SA both deeply criticize the Paranormal ArbCom decision and openly ignore it.  So I would think that it would give him an opportunity he would be very happy to take. I could rephrase: "What is your opinion concerning the decision of the Paranormal ArbCom?"  But I do think my own second qeustion is fair- SA and many others simply go against that, and they have told me that I "mis-interpret" it, and that parapsychology can't be treated as any sort of science. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Martin, I strongly disagree that my question is similarly loaded. When I originally posted it, I included a note welcoming suggestions for modifications to ensure neutrality.  I have suggested (in response to your observation) that "fringe / pseudoscience field" might be a reasonable alternative formulation.  Further, your loaded question presupposes the answer.  If you believe that mine has this problem, I would appreciate an explanation of how I have done so.  I will certainly offer a refactored form if you can explain to me the presupposition of your response that is implicit in my question - I do not want to be asking a loaded question. Jay*Jay (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You asked, in your first question: "Did [SA] deliberately misrepresent the central status this idea has within scientific skepticism, or did he genuinely not know about it?" That is a pretty obvious example of the fallacy of many questions, aka "have you stopped beating your wife?" It is closed-ended and frames only two possible answers, both of which reflect negatively on SA and explicitly preclude more rational explanations. It is therefore appropriately viewed as a rhetorical cudgel rather than a question intended to spur open-ended discussion. I'm not sure how I've victimized you here, or what abuse of mine you're having to put up with, but my intention was simply to point out that the manner in which the question is phrased invalidates it. MastCell Talk 22:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[Comment from sockpuppet of banned user redacted]


 * The difference is that SA has said certain things himself here at Wikipedia. The CSI embraces an idea which SA rejects, and I think that if SA has said something, as he has also said that parapsychology is pseudoscience, questions which assume that he still thinks these things are appropriate. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to wonder why Martin is acting for Davkal here. I believe that we have policies against meatpuppetering...or does this only apply to uncivil puppeteers?  Shot info (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sworn to uphold his ban. That is for WP technology.  Davkal deserved his ban, but when he participates in a good way, his ideas should be incorporated.  I won't insert anything of his I feel is disruptive, but I will incorporate those ideas of his which I feel are good, whether or not I put his name on them.  The same goes for any other user.  I welcome constructive participation.  Any contributions which I previously inserted with his name may be seen as something whose non-disruptiveness I vouch for. I will stop putting his name on any ideas which I choose to insert, however.  I am not afraid that I will be contaminated by association, as I trust that the quality of the ideas will speak for themselves.  As I said before, I welcome the more hard-hitting questions in my own case, as I feel they give more breadth for response.  I feel that such questions are opportunities, and -as SA is also the hard-hitting type and even welcomes incivility- I assume he also has this attitude.  Therefore, I give him the honor I wish for myself, by giving him direct hard-hitting questions.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Responded to by Mastcell elsewhere, please cease acting as the banned user's proxy. Shot info (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You state on your user page that "dysfunction [...] now prevails on Wikipedia." Could you explain what you mean by this, and how you think the situation could be remedied?
 * You have recently stated that you think "Civility is arbitrary. ... [T]he entire concept needs to be trashed...." Please explain this opinion. --Zvika (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This practice of quote mining has been historically used as a weapon by both MP and SA against each other in numerous RfC's, Arbcoms, and AN/I incidents. As someone else said, it adds heat here, but not light. I suggest a ban on quote-mining during the interview.  Elevate the discussion away from the personal. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Quote mining is the practice of compiling frequently misleading quotes from large volumes of literature or speech." I have tried to take quotes which represent the opinion of SA as best I understand it, not extract misleading bits of sentences. The first quote is from the very first sentence on SA's user page and is emphasized with a blue box, so I hardly see how it could be interpreted as an inadvertent comment. The second quote is from a post that SA made yesterday, so I think it's relevant, but I will withdraw this question if SA indicates that the statement was made in the heat of the moment. In any case, my intention was to give SA a chance to expand on his POV, not to confront him. The first quote in particular (which is not originally due to SA, but he took responsibility for it by putting it on his userpage) seems to have been what sparked much of the recent debate, so I think bringing this up gives SA a chance to introduce what he sees as the problem on WP. --Zvika (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Zvika, I read the comment (which I think should have been on the talk page) as a suggestion to modify the rules to ban SA and MP from quote mining. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought so too at first, but then why does it start "This practice of quote mining"? 66.30.77.62, could you clarify? --Zvika (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as Jay Jay said, it's only a suggestion. "This practice..." refers to MP and SA, not Zvika. From observing their behaviour in numerous disputes, once quote-mining begins, the MP/SA discussions degenerate into a "he said/she said" shouting match. YMMV. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Oh, OK. Well, I will try to focus the questions on what each interviewee thinks, not what he thinks the other guy thinks. Hopefully this will keep the discussion away from personal matters. I get the impression that both of them are perfectly willing to engage in all-out war, but both have interesting things to say as long as things stay calm. --Zvika (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see how the this is problematic, but there is now clarification. :)  On the above question (the civility one), I'd really like to see a question that is broader than that single policy, and to both participants - it was my motivation for the question with the east.718 quote.  Differing perspectives on civil behaviour and WP:CIVIL are a key issue in the ongoing debate.  For example, a lot of the accusations of SA being uncivil I read as being direct.  SA writes the way scientists often communicate amongst themselves - it may be more direct than some people are used to, and even blunt at times, but it is characteristic of peopple in the science fields.  I would contend that some people use this as a tool to win content disputes in just the way east indicates (and as Raymond Arritt also explained in the AN/I discussion from which the east quote is taken).  As such, this area really needs to be addressed in some form by both parties in the interview.  Please. :)  Jay*Jay (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems to me that "mainstream"/"skeptic" editors tend to accuse "fringe" editors of gaming CIV, more than the other way around. It's my understanding that that is why SA is unhappy with CIV, and my suggested question above is basically intended to give him a chance to explain this opinion (which I think is an extreme minority in WP as a whole). MP on the other hand is quite happy with CIV and would even like to see it strengthened, so I'm not sure what would be the added value of asking his opinion on this issue. --Zvika (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * CIV is gamable only if the other policy issues underlying the debate that degenerates are not enforced. I would very much like to see MP's response to east's comment, because I have no idea whether he thinks CIV is enforced more than other policies.  I wouldn't ask MP the question you suggest for SA, and it needn't be mine (of course!) but I would like to see something that gets at the interconnectedness of policies.  If you wanted to ask each in different ways, you could go get one of the homeopathy probation warnings used by Whig or Anthon01 (one of them - don't remember which) where one content policy and five behaviour policies are mentioned.  I fully expect that SA will argue (at least in part) that the behaviour becomes problematic because content policy issues aren't resolved, and I'm interested in what MP's perspective is on the enforcement and resolution of content policy disputes. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your point now. I'll try to squeeze it in. --Zvika (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and sorry it took me so long to make myself clear. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The interview is now taking place. Naturally, further modifications to this section will not affect the interview questions.