My impression is that this post is relevant to the faq-maintainer's elist
else I would not make it here. Please let me know if I am in error.
|From: r.boys@genie.geis.com
|Date: Wed, 7 Dec 94 22:18:00 UTC
|I am interested in any issues or problems related to wrong information in
|FAQs especially any consequences, even if minor. Or even if it doesn't
|matter.
Inaccuracy of fact will likely only hurt on a short-term basis unless it
is libelous or slanderous or if incorrect information actually leads someone
to endanger or harm themselves through following it. Even then it need not
be problematic to the FAQ-creator unless someone pursues the matter legally.
A pressing issue for me is the way that FAQs are sometimes a single set
of answers for subjects which are extremely complex, and as such they are
*always* biased in one way or another, often so as to save from having to
take up too much space and/or involve too much work.
Especially for theoretical matters, such as that in which I trek (religion,
philosophy, psychology, occultism, etc.) more often than not the basic
questions about the subject are the bedrock from which everyone involved
begins to formulate a knowledge-structure, and the way that these questions
are addressed determines rather concretely and formulaically how the subject
shall be viewed, too often giving newcomers to the subject a very skewed
and biased introduction.
It wouldn't be a problem if what was being compiled was just a personal
opinion posted to a newsgroup, but there is a mystique about the 'FAQ'
which lends an air of authority where it may indeed not be substantiated.
Quite like 'Ph.D.'s or other social labels when attached to people, the
terminology very often points out reservoirs of experience or knowledge,
yet when the breadth or depth of these is not regulated without bias in
some fashion then the mystique applied may not be justified with consistent
substance.
In fact, FAQs are sometimes created by those newly interested in the
material who have time and inclination to not only investigate it afresh
but to enter into the social approbation which is likely to result from
their endeavor (from other newcomers if nothing else). This has the
unfortunate repercussions of omitting a variety of perspectives when
dealing with complex theoretical issues, and tends to promote some of the
most popular and extreme of views.
The positive aspect of FAQs, even if done poorly, is that they really are
a compilation of *questions which are frequently asked*. In technical
newsgroups the answers contained within the FAQ may make it possible to
move on to more complex discussion, but in the more theoretical (and
notably less dogmatic) endeavors, the list of *questions* provides a sort
of 'study key', beginning a mapping or hint-list which may be used
effectively by the newcomer to approach the subject matter.
tyagi nagasiva
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
(maintaining the 'Kreeeping Oooze FAQs' of alt.magick and beginning some
construction on various particular FAQs for organizations quite aside
from Usenet -- one a TinyMuck, another an online networking organization)
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved