[re: the ego-boosting qualities of media sources]
|Insert 'to be involved in any publishing or broadcast medium' here.
|Weather announcers have egos too.
Agreed.
|As for the dweebs who take any FAQ as gospel truth, let's hope to God
|that they don't start believing what they read in the National Enquirer.
Yes, but I like to think that FAQ-maintainers have a collective
responsibility to ensure quality of information as it serves the
*newbies* to the newsgroup, and such traps are fairly easy to avoid
by observing some rudimentary guidelines.
|> But truthfully, did you _have_ to do this to us?
|I'd phrase that as 'What relevance does this have to the faq-maintainers
|mailing list, if any?'
I'd thought discussion of the contents of quality FAQs would be of interest
to all FAQ-maintainers. I heard the distinction made as to theory-FAQs and
practical-FAQs and that is very important. If I'm mistaken (having seen
several related threads in the past), then I hope the moderators (or some
other official agent) will make this known.
I do not think my claims need necessarily to apply to such things as
'Cabinet-making FAQ's or 'Stratego FAQ's, which will often resort to
traditional rule-systems for the benefit of the instructors. As the
original comments were made to theory-forums, this extremity made sense
within context, but I agree it may be more difficult to justify as one
broadens one's frame of reference. For perspecacious philosophers like
myself it would not be sufficient (there are ideals toward which one may
aspire in the creation of FAQs).
I do notice that even with such things as cabinet-making, it is such a
complex and beautiful art that I can't imagine any single cultural or
stylistic system would be possible. Each culture's standards surrounding
different styles of furniture would require different starting methods,
etc. I.e. even the practical-FAQs may be more difficult to make if we
were to follow facilitation procedures (making common understandings
known but not defining these as 'facts').
And Stratego, which is a particular game perhaps useful only as an example,
could be played with variations and all the permutations given to modern
games (making the board more complex, discussion of tactics, offense and
defense configurations, etc.). If the game was insufficiently self-
defining (as are almost all games really, due to mutations), then FAQs
would be necessary for any tradition of play which developed a degree of
popularity sufficient to warrant the creation of a branching newsgroup.
tyaginator
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved