>There are some tasks which a good FAQ editor performs which cannot be
>performed simply by making a link to an existing document. To me, a
>good FAQ is one which condenses and summarizes information, and
>presents it in some sort of prioritized order, with a sense of "flow"
>from section to section. You can't do that simply by transcluding
>other people's text verbatim.
I stand by my comments. the distinction between FAQ writing and good
hypertext document creation is blurring into oblivion. Yes, there is an
art to both. But *anyone* can do this. It is nothing but *good
editing*. I don't understand what you are saying. Is it-- `faq writing
is hard. therefore, we should limit the people who are allowed to do
this.' well, @#$%^&*
[FAQs as merely links]
>True, there are many
>FAQ files that are like that, but we shouldn't rush to assume that
>that's the way FAQ files *should* be.
I see. Well, God, how *should* FAQs be? if your definition includes any
terms like `they should be approved by an elite corps' or similar
cliquish exclusionary euphemisms, I think I don't give a @#$%^&* about
what you think of how FAQs should be, and frankly I don't think anyone
else in future cyberspace will either. The most important aspect of
FAQs today is that *anyone* can write one and submit it into a public server.
>Not really. I still need to know which of the ten million people on
>the network can be relied on to have pointers to good stuff.
I am not claiming that *everyone* should create their documents that
point to their favorite resources. I'm saying that everyone should be
*encouraged* to. The valuable information will naturally rise to the
top as some people delegate to others, *voluntarily*. but any system,
which your rhetoric seems to mask, where there are *imposed* decisions
from an elite cadre of FAQ Priests, I say we can eliminate *immediately*.
>WWW is really a "poor man's Xanadu", and fails to solve any of the
>basic problems with hypermedia (which I won't go into here). It's
>therefore fundamentally unsuited to anything more than light use.
> I sincerely hope that PAX (Public Access Xanadu) arrives soon,
>before these second-rate technologies get too entrenched.
`second-rate technlogies'? @#$%^&* Where is Xanadu? Where is this
fantastic system that is going to revolutionize the world? WWW and
Mosaic are here *now* and are revolutionizing the world *now*. And
whatever Nelson is doing, you can be pretty sure that he is going to
have to fit it into the context of *existing* hypertext technology on
the Internet that is exploding like crazy.
and I again reiterate that WWW is *evolving*. These protocols are
slowly being improved to the point that all the problems you claim they
have will be eliminated, and features you never even imagined will be added.
just because you hide behind your tentacle and conceal your
affiliations to Xanadoodoo does not give you any authority to smear the
systems that *millions* of people are using *today*. or, go ahead and
smear them, and see how many enemies you make. (that reminds me,
E.Hughes, founder of the Cypherpunks and the Master Cyberspace
Medusean-Tentacle Religion, supposedly works with T.Nelson...)
>Hmm. I'd better get started building a network of fake addresses from
>which I can plug my own FAQ, then.
>...
>Or bump up their own ratings using SNAKES and TENTACLES.
@#$%^&*
Medusa pisses me off, because she doesn't understand the concept of
honesty and morality. it is not *honest* to manipulate a vote. since
Medusa exists, though, and is tenacious, we are going to have to design
technologies that prevent cheaters-- those people who corrupt a system
and say that their actions are justified because the system is corruptable.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved