|From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (tyaginator)
|Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.magick.tyagi
|Subject: Re: FAQ's
|Date: 3 Aug 1995 09:06:29 -0700
[some excerpts I thought relevant to forward to this forum:]
oispeggy@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown):
|>In heavy-volume groups with a wide range of related topics I like the
|>faq/sub-faq structure.
|
|Yes, we've been proceeding along that line partially because of its popularity,
|partly because it is easier to coordinate with anarchic, loose-nit groups.
|>The main faq needs a good index and accurate information on where to find
|>sub-faqs.
|Yes, and we're moving towards that right now, based on interest and time
|available for volunteered work which is likely to be accepted by a great
|number of the newsgroup's participants.
|The name 'sub-faq' in these areas, however, is deceptive. These files,
|in most cases, especially when created by single individuals about certain
|subjects, are really REFerence files. They don't tend to focus upon
|frequently asked questions only, but go really too far into depth of
|information to qualify for what I'd call a FAQ (or even sub-FAQ).
|
|I don't think we need any sub-FAQs presently. I think that having one FAQ
|to which to refer newbies will illuminate other areas of common inquiry,
|and from there new Frequently Asked Questions will emerge if the top-level
|document diffracts or diffuses some of the more common discussion. Compare
|it to stopping up a lava flow, thereby increasing pressure on other areas of
|the landscape, or putting a patch on a dike.
|>There are already several very good sub-faqs floating around,
|As I said, I'd use different terminology. I agree that several REFs exist
|on particular magical topics (and from other newsgroups excellent related
|REFs -- usually called 'FAQ's). Examples are the REFs you mentioned and
|the files created by Dean Edwards for the soc.religion.shamanism and
|soc.religion.gnosis newsgroups.
|>particularly the Kaballah faq, the Golden Dawn faq, and the Sex-magick
|>faq (in what is called the original faq).
|The Golden Dawn and Kaballah FAQs are not FAQs at all, or they are FAQs
|for some other forum than alt.magick, since I have rarely seen those
|questions come up in the newsgroup. Don't get me wrong, I think both
|of those files are extremely valuable references. I just don't think
|that they are newsgroup FAQs. For the newsgroup they are REFs.
|
|Why do I bother making the distinction? Because REFs are a lower scale
|of document where Usenet newsgroups are concerned. They are more akin
|to books or cdrom products: reference sources for further investigation.
|They're not focussed upon the newsgroup but upon their own subject
|matter in a very logical and useful concretization of data.
|
|What you are calling the 'Sex-magick faq', for example doesn't even
|contain questions. FAQs best address the most common inquiries,
|regardless of whether this leaves the subject area around which
|the question pertains unexamined. FAQs don't inform, they dissuade.
|They are tools to keep people quiet and/or focussed upon the more
|complex newsgroup topics, rather than spamming on old tunes.
|>So really the alt.magick faq need not do much more than give a couple
|>definitions and a little information on the alt.magick hierarchy, and
|>point to sub-faqs.
|I agree with this fully and hope to work to streamline a satisfactory
|signpost.
[end of post]
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved