First, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. This is especially
true of medical devices that you've never heard of before.
Second: what's the purpose of your FAQ? If it's focussed on actual newgroup
activity, truly a Frequently Answered Questions document, then the fact that
you haven't heard of the device before means it doesn't belong. If your FAQ
is intended as a general introduction or coverage of the subject matter,
then you should already know enough about the topic to decide. Since you
asked, I assume the former -- and therefore the submission does not belong
in your FAQ.
I include some information about commercial products in the
misc.health.diabetes FAQ. All is clearly in response to questions asked
repeatedly by newsgroup participants. Specifically, I include information
about models of blood glucose meters, mail order sources, and software. In a
couple of minor cases, I include information that the provider sent me
unsolicited, but was in line with info already in the FAQ. Not too
surprisingly, net citizens tend to be enamored of using technology to help
monitor the treatment of their diabetes, and someone else maintains an
entire separate document of software reviews that's posted along with my FAQ.
Now, that doesn't address how I'd actually respond in the face of the
request. Even if I know I won't include the material, I may prefer not to
give my reasons directly. Probably, though, I would in fact start by
explaining that I simply haven't observed any interest in the topic on the
newsgroup. In addition to being absolutely true, this is also a very
objective criterion. This makes it easier to explain to newsgroup
participants what to expect from the FAQ, now and in the future. I'm not
much worried about potential lawsuits, but if something actually reached
that point, having an objective criterion for inclusion might be helpful.
I'd probably then ask for references. This is particularly effective in
medical areas, where the standard is peer-reviewed literature. Don't bother
sending me anything less, and if the journal isn't readily available in the
US, send me a copy of the article. No, Virginia, _Prevention_ is not
peer-reviewed. Translate it for me if it isn't in English or French. This
isn't a large burden, since translating medical literature is pretty trivial
as translation goes.
If they persist, I'd advise them to post it to the newsgroup (I wouldn't
post it myself) and discuss it with the participants -- though I'd
simultaneously advise them to have those peer-reviewed references attached.
This is akin to throwing them to the wolves, assuming they don't have
peer-reviewed references. misc.health.diabetes has collected its share of
snake oil salespeople. The most popular products (with the sellers) are
chromium, pycnogenol, fenugreek, vanadium and yoga, generally promoted by
small-timers who will get a reward for referring customers to the actual
sellers. This has so sensitized many of the newsgroup participants that even
a potentially valuable product with good references would have trouble
getting past the gauntlet. The Usenet may provide an unprecedented ability
to promulgate snake oil, but it also provides an unprecedented ability to
respond in a way that those who see the original promotion also see the
responses.
Edward Reid
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved