Talk:ShareSpace foundation

Launch!

I've launched this article as both a space enthusiast (see, for example http://portaltotheuniverse.org/blogs/posts/view/357925/) and an admirer of Buzz Aldrin, and so for those inclined to do so, don't get too upset by the reference to climate change: Wikipedia is rather amazing for allowing nothing to get swept under the rug, and my reference at least assumes that there is going to be some resolution. And will be glad to discuss further on this page! Synchronist (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best of all possible worlds

I must admit that I struggled with the wording of the "Larger Context" section in trying to get across a couple of fairly subtle circumstances while at the same time attempting to maintain some narrative flow; Godsy has made a noble effort to improve clarity and directness, and has also added a valuable reference; and now I've made an attempt to come closer to the best of all possible worlds. Synchronist (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I tried to keep it to a standard copyedit at first, but had to change a bit more. This sentence "On the downside, ShareSpace will need to address the paradoxical unscientific stance implicit in at least one of Aldrin's public comments about climate change." is an issue with the "Larger Context" section. I put a {{According to whom}} tag on it, which replaced with a source, would address most of the issue. The wording of the sentence may need a slight adjustment. Is there a source calling for the foundation/Aldrin to address his statements? If not, we can't really draw the conclusion that it will need to be addressed. It sort of comes off as original research to me, without a source with an outcry for that. It would be more encyclopedic to say that he has made such comments, preferably directly quoting him. That is, if that info even belongs in this article or is needed. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Godsy, everything you have said about the climate change sentence is exactly correct according to the letter of Wikipedia law; but as a fellow Christian, let me invite you to give precedence to the wisdom of 2 Corinthians: "the letter killeth, and the spirit giveth life" (not to mention that Wikipedia itself acknowledges that there are no hard and fast rules as to what constitutes a legitimate article).

Suppose, for example, that I went to a job interview, and everything went swimmingly except for the fact that I needed to improve my computer skills. A negative way for the interviewer to end the session would be to say, "Your are deficient in computer skills." The interviewer could, instead, end on a more positive note by saying that "You need to address your computer skills" -- and this is what I have tried to do, however incorrect by normal Wikipedia standards, regarding an embarrassing comment made by one of my great heroes.

And there is also this formal logical resolution: given that the word "address" is quite open-ended, it is incontrovertible that Sharespace will need to deal with an issue which has already been raised elsewhere (as, for example, in the main Wikipedia article on Aldrin) -- even if their method of addressing the issue is merely to maintain an embarassed silence. Synchronist (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your tweak and have re-tweaked just a wee bit. Synchronist (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the wording just slightly, and shifted the sentence structure a bit [1] (typing this at the same time as your previous comment). When I looked at address, I thought of it as formally responding about the comment, though you are correct in that they could make no comments by the definition of of address. "On the downside," is another phrase to look at, but I suppose any controversy could be viewed as a downside. I see your point Synchronist, I think it is fine with the "according to whom" tag for now. However, someone could take a strong position against including the sentence because it is unsourced, especially because it concerns a living person in a way. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ShareSpace foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150510021423/http://cemast.illinoisstate.edu/public/imagination.shtml to http://cemast.illinoisstate.edu/public/imagination.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]