from "faq-maintainers@consensus.com":
Pamela Greene <pgreene@optics.rochester.edu>, news-answers co-moderator:
#...moderators.... our position, then add a few comments of my own.
#...we will approve any posting which meets the header guidelines and
#"which answers common questions and is meant to be read by humans"
#(quoting from the news.answers charter). We do not place any
#restrictions whatsoever on the content of the posting, and we do
#not intend to begin doing so unless the *.answers charter is modified
#to place more requirements on cross-posted articles.
I like this very very much, even while it could lead to FAQ-terrorism.
#We haven't had many problems with competing FAQs, and when we have,
#we've always just told the dissenting groups to write their own FAQs
#and get them approved, too.
this is what is going to happen in the alt.satanism newsgroup, seeing
that I have obtained a statement to the effect that you'd approve it.
there are already 3 or more "FAQ"s floating about, and in the type of
newsgroups with which I have familiarity (mostly academic, theoretical
and occult/religious of nature) there is quite a bit of room for
difference of opinion which isn't always reflected well in popular files.
I think this is the trend of the future as regards the more ambiguous
subject-areas (the technical ones get more agreement), and it strikes
me as a healthy one (like having many different books addressing the
same subject, since more often than not 'FAQs' do not conform to what
I'd call standards of excellence in regards incorporation of diversity
in their responses).
#I've never heard of a situation which escalated beyond that, until
#this s.c.russian incident.
you may wish to get used to it in the more controversial and divergent
forums. I hope to set an example with the alt.satanism newsgroup and
will intentionally encourage others to do likewise for that newsgroup
on account of its particular focus (individualism, controversy, etc.).
#More typically, negative feedback solves the problem: one of the FAQs
#is praised, quoted, and referred to much more often by the newsgroup's
#readers, and the other one dies out for lack of a supportive audience.
this is less 'negative feedback' and more 'lack of positive feedback'.
I'd think that it would then depend on the will or enthusiasm of whoever
was supporting the alternative (how long they can hold out given no or
negative response).
#It would be nearly impossible for us to filter submissions for
#accuracy, even to the extent of checking them for factual errors.
#There are well over 1500 postings approved for *.answers, on an
#enormous variety of topics. It's clearly infeasible to expect the
#moderation team to know anything at all about any particular FAQ's
#subject, or even to check every one for contradictions or errors.
as I said, I think that this is a Good Thing. it promotes diversity
and a confluence of knowledge rather than censorship or editing.
#Even having "officially sanctioned" FAQ maintainers for a particular
#newsgroup or topic would be a logistical nightmare, and would hobble
#the free-form anarchy Usenet has enjoyed so far -- which anarchy I,
#for one, think is a good thing, despite undeniable problems it has
#caused.
and yet it is not often that this 'anarchy' is truly engaged. more
often people play along with the supposed 'rules' as if there is a
standard where there is not, which is why your post here seems to me
so very important (pointing out the limitations of authority which
these mechanisms truly have and where we are and are not supporting
them).
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
tyaginator
----------
maintainer: alt.magick FAQ -- http://www.hollyfeld.org/amgkfaq
alt.magick.tyagi REF (see the newsgroup)
alt.satanism FAQ (soon to be submitted, revolutionary/secondary)
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved