Whew! I don't think there are any universal truths in how various
people handle FAQs for various groups. I handle a five-part FAQ, and
think only about half of the first part---where the charter is
presented---is something that is common to "most FAQs. Four of the
five parts are quite specific to the group (rec.antiques.radio+phono).
The discussion of the charter up front is important because this not
only defines what the group is and is not about, but is a place where
the FAQ editor can present issues that have been brought up about the
limits of the charter. I feel strongly that my role here is as
consensus reporter, although I'll confess to having done some consensus
building as well. Thus far, the absence of any real flame wars in the
group about the charter may be pure luck, but I think that in part it
comes from observing the group carefully, noting who the key
participants are, and writing something that all of them agree with in
large part. I used "straw man" postings as trial balloons for some of
this, and listened carefully to what I got for responses, so when it
appeared in the FAQ, they'd all seen it before. In terms of
sanctioning mechanisms, we really don't have one. A response posting
or two, and some E-mail from three or four individuals who are part of
this "community" generally suffices----in most cases, an inappropriate
posting really belongs in another newsgroup, and we point the person to
an appropriate group.
However, the primary role of the FAQ, and four of its five sections,
are addressed to the topic itself. Where to get information, where to
buy things, safety precautions (a serious consideration with vacuum
tube electronics and spring-powered phonos), but if I had to categorize
the thrust of these sections, I tend to view them as an introduction to
the topic of obsolete home-entertainment technology----how it works,
how to make it work, risks involved, etc. Many of the "questions"
answered are not "frequently-asked," because they do not occur to the
newcomer to the field until after they have done serious
damage---either to themselves or to their antique device. As an
educational tool, the FAQ does go beyond the immediate needs of the
newsgroup, and some of the material has been republished (permission
asked and granted) elsewhere.
I consider myself as "editor" and not "author" as my primary role.
True, I may have written something over half of the text without help
from anyone. But I have included a great deal of material that was
prepared by others, generally verbatim and with acknowledgement to the
author. I have also actively solicited material from others, and have
been very careful to include their responses, once again, with
acknowledgement. But I think it is important to emphasize that 90% of
what appears in this FAQ is determined by the nature of the newsgroup
and its charter topics, and that choices and methodologies that work
well here would not work at all in other newsgroups. There are some
real tradeoffs in being clear and concise to the individual unfamiliar
with the topic while avoiding being patronizing to the people who have
substantial knowledge.
>
> Again, I'm sorry if it was improper to post this message here. I'm new
> to the Net, which is partly what inspired me to write about faq's and the
> impression they give newcomers to a community (and yes I've read the "FAQ
> on FAQ's" posted to news.answers, but I was hoping to get some first-hand
> feedback). Any response would be a huge help.
>
I would suggest that you pick eight or ten newsgroups that have
comprehensive FAQs in news.answers, read those FAQs, and spend some
time following the newsgroups themselves. While this sort of thing is
not, in itself, "statistically valid," it should give you some feel for
things that work well and things that don't.
-- *********************************************************** Hank van Cleef vancleef@bga.com vancleef@tmn.com ***********************************************************
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved