It isn't. It's an anarchic assemblage of petty autocracies--
the ultimate Frankish state, in the Machievellian sense-- with numerous
additional charismatic nobles advising the autarchs. However, for
purposes of determining the degree of consensus, and for eventually
being able to say, "SHUT UP, YOU LOST", certain aspects of a democracy
(IE, voting) have been incorporated by the relevant autarchs, at the
advice of the nobles. Clear?
>If I have an AOL account, does that mean I can vote six times?
If you have six accounts, yes. Should, no. Compare the case of
a freind of mine, who has two legal and distinct names and identities
in the Real World. He could, if he chose, use this to vote twice-- one
ID resides in one place, another in another. However, he doesn't,
because it is morally wrong. (Also illegal, but that's irrelevant to
this discussion. In fact, this whole side matter is irrelevant.)
>> 2) If a FAQ is judged wildly inaccurate, one can respond
>> with a counter-FAQ, and/or ask for the person to correct it. Is
>> there any way to get it's news.answers FAQ halo removed?
>
>How do you measure how wild an inaccuracy is? Four falsehoods per FAQ?
>What do you do for FAQs that are inaccurate but don't paint the
>*entire* picture (i.e. self-promoting text on a new drug by the
>pharmaceutical company, for example)?
This is why I was asking.... and one reason why voting might be
used. For some things on the net, a 50% majority suffices; for some
things, a 2/3 majority is required; and for some things, a 90% majority
is required.
>I would think that instead of pulling the rug out of an inaccurate
>FAQ, it should be countered with a counter-FAQ. That, if the original
>FAQ maintainer refuses to make the needed corrections (which they
>might not feel is needed).
Which is about what I thought was the case.
>You will be providing more information
>without squelching someone else's right to free speech.
"Free speech" isn't quite accurate here. *.answers are moderated
chartered newsgroups, which places them fairly clearly in the class of
*limited* public fora. But that's another kettle of fish, which has been
hashed out elsewhere.
So as to provide an assumption as to an immediate consensus,
I will make the following proposal:
1) Any FAQ may have a counter-FAQ.
2) The *.answers moderation team should be able to require for
approval, *IF* they so choose (in the case of controversial FAQs) that
the maintainer insert an explicit disclaimer noting that though the FAQ
is posted to *.answers and approved, this does not mean that the
moderators agree with the content.
>Every posting of the original FAQ can be followed by a counter-FAQ.
OK, for my next question....
Is there any way to *autolink* the posting of a FAQ, so that any
time a FAQ is posted, the counterFAQ is posted as a followup?
AB^2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Go not unto Usenet for advice, for the denizens will say both yes, and no,
and maybe, and I don't know, and fuck off, and...." --Unknown net.wit
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved