4 ms·
> This interview transcript is a work of dramatised historical reconstruction. Frances Allen died on 4th August 2020, and cannot speak. The words, reflections,
by lmz 10mo ago
> This interview transcript is a work of dramatised historical reconstruction. Frances Allen died on 4th August 2020, and cannot speak. The words, reflections, and responses attributed to her in this document are constructed from historical records, published interviews, biographical materials, technical papers, and documented accounts of her life and work – but they are not her actual words, spoken in real time.
Might be good to put that up top next time.
- dang 10mo agoYes, that's bad. I've made the title clear, at least, above.
- VogonPoetry 10mo agoI've written to <voxmeditantis@gmail.com> about how deceptive it was to put the Editorial Note at the end instead of upfront. I stopped reading because sections felt fabricated - but it was presented as an oral history or actual interview. What a terrible way to present the work of a pioneer.
- VogonPoetry 10mo agoI have received feedback from Vox. The article has been updated with a new leading paragraph indicating the fictional nature of the article.
- neilv 10mo agoWould it make sense to replace the link with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Allen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Allen or a proper biography? And maybe even permaban a site that's fabricating interviews with real people (without disclosing that until 16,000 words later).
- neilv 10mo agoThat disclosure is infuriatingly only at the end of the piece, after 16,000 words. The only hint I saw: there's many unusual notes in how she's speaking, which don't come across comfortably. You have to stop and consider whether she's speaking out of personal bitterness and resentment, or is using herself as an example, to drive home a point about how women in general were mistreated. Then it turns out it's fabricated, and this is not what she spoke in an interview. I'm very sympathetic to the message, but angry over the misleading way it was presented. The disclosure comes only after 16,000 words of fabricated interview and community Q&A. And, in the ~900-word afterword, the "We ask you to read this interview in the spirit in which it is offered: as a thoughtful, historically grounded, but frankly fictional..." really should've been at the beginning. I hope this was a publication editing mistake, rather than intentional. We need people to be much smarter than we are right now. Yet, in a discourse environment in which truth and reasoning are being attacked and eroded from many directions, this article offers new bad example to young adults. ||voxmeditantis.com^$important