It occurs to me that the news.answers moderation system might be
able to adopt a compromise stance in these conflicts, similar
(and probably not coincidentally so) to a proposed (?) new
wrinkle in the new group proposal guidelines. When a newsgroup
is discovered to have two or more competing FAQ lists or other
PIP's, and when the animosity level has reached the point that
one side has accused another's FAQ list of being so inaccurate or
dangerous that it should not receive news.answers approval, the
moderators could require that *all* postings approved for that
newsgroup henceforth begin with a disclaimer of the form:
"There are competing FAQ lists for this newsgroup, not all
of them in agreement with this one. The other ones may be
found at..."
At that point, if any of the competing FAQ list maintainers
refused to properly include the disclaimer or to accurately list
the locations of the opposing lists, news.answers approval could
be denied in an objective way.
There's a certain element of King Solomon's solution here: often
(perhaps even usually), the more honest and ethical of the
combatants in such disputes are the more willing to acknowledge
the existence of those who disagree with them. It would be the
incorrigible, immoderate, intolerant disputants who would
probably attempt to flout the "equal time" rule, and so have
their approval removed.
Steve Summit
scs@eskimo.com
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved