Yes, I agree, panels are more difficult to arrange (and it's harder to get experts to agree to participate because supporting and defending their ideas is more difficult than having a platform to themselves).
But what is more important? Doing what is easy or doing what is right and best for the research community?
I would not object to hearing about linguistics from a linguist, but I do not agree with any of SB's linguistic interpretations of the VMS and these interviews are about what can be added to our knowledge of the VMS.
I will explain more fully why this disturbs me...
Before the voynich.ninja, SB's blog became a forum for ideas because one was needed. At first I thought this was a good thing. I saw excellent ideas by Ellie, Marco, Worley, Zandbergen, and many other forumites posted on Bax's site.
But when I went to other sites and saw these articles being referenced and quoted, the credit was almost always given to SB, NOT to the person who wrote the articles! I saw this time and again and found it deeply troubling and was 200% supportive of the forum when it was started because I felt it was more neutral and more likely to garner credit for those who actually DID the research and took the time to post it.
I am concerned that what will happen in a video interview is what happened with the SB blog, because of the massive publicity that he has received, I'm worried that SB will summarize or quote the research of others and get credit for their ideas for the simple reason that all the publicity has put his name in the spotlight and audiences have this habit of assuming the speaker as the source.
If we are asking questions of experts, then keep it to specific questions about their field. I have no objection to that.
If we are asking questions of people with Voynich theories, unproven ones, contested ones, then it should be a panel format with input from more than one person, otherwise the very act of interviewing the person implies an endorsement of their ideas and this is not a good thing.
But what is more important? Doing what is easy or doing what is right and best for the research community?
I would not object to hearing about linguistics from a linguist, but I do not agree with any of SB's linguistic interpretations of the VMS and these interviews are about what can be added to our knowledge of the VMS.
I will explain more fully why this disturbs me...
Before the voynich.ninja, SB's blog became a forum for ideas because one was needed. At first I thought this was a good thing. I saw excellent ideas by Ellie, Marco, Worley, Zandbergen, and many other forumites posted on Bax's site.
But when I went to other sites and saw these articles being referenced and quoted, the credit was almost always given to SB, NOT to the person who wrote the articles! I saw this time and again and found it deeply troubling and was 200% supportive of the forum when it was started because I felt it was more neutral and more likely to garner credit for those who actually DID the research and took the time to post it.
I am concerned that what will happen in a video interview is what happened with the SB blog, because of the massive publicity that he has received, I'm worried that SB will summarize or quote the research of others and get credit for their ideas for the simple reason that all the publicity has put his name in the spotlight and audiences have this habit of assuming the speaker as the source.
If we are asking questions of experts, then keep it to specific questions about their field. I have no objection to that.
If we are asking questions of people with Voynich theories, unproven ones, contested ones, then it should be a panel format with input from more than one person, otherwise the very act of interviewing the person implies an endorsement of their ideas and this is not a good thing.