"S.P.Zeidler" <spz@serpens.rhein.de>:
|I think wether a FAQ can be even remotely considered propaganda or not
|depends a lot on the topic of the group (and thus, the FAQ).
Agreed.
|Would you consider information on, eg, fixing bike lights that burn out too
|often. or how to open an endless bike chain, propaganda?
It could be, yes. It would depend on whether it unfairly influenced the
reader toward one particular line of bike parts, or technical approach
to bicycle repair. There are ways to slant even technical information
such that it favors whatever entity the advertizer is paid to serve.
But in general, no. I'm sure there very adequate reference manuals of
this sort, and they ought be treated as such.
I would, however, contrast this with a FAQ, which, as I tend to use the
term, refers to a Usenet-generated document pertaining to a particular
Usenet forum containing at bare bones frequently asked questions from
*within* that newsgroup and responses *to* those questions (which I
maintain should be general and journalistic rather than explicit and
indoctrinating).
|Or addresses of mail-order bike suppliers, bike clubs and the like?
Again, good REFerences.
|Or typed-down excerpts of the law(s) as regarding biking?
Again, it would be a REFerence, but it could serve the function of part of
a composite FAQ as some newsgroup FAQ coordinators do today.
|Or even a plea -not- to start the monthly compulsive-bike-helmet against
|non-helmet-wearer flamefest again,
THIS is what a FAQ is for. Precisely. It is best, as I understand it,
produced for the purposes of minimizing *routine* discussion, largely
through brief explanation of the complexity of the subjects with
introductory references as needed.
However, none of these references are best considered 'the definitive
source on newsgroup substance' unless of course it is designed this way
from the beginning (a likely tactical syntax assault).
|as long as one didn't have a new argument
I would not limit it like this unless a kind of draconian restriction
was called for by the moderators of the forum. Ordinarily even in
some of the most popular newsgroups I imagine there is room for *some*
naivete, some recollection of classic fallacies and hypotheses, though
I realize there are times when it is advantageous to restrict them.
|(non-decisive arguments list following). (Sadly, it's not working.)
What is it that you are saying isn't working? Why do you think this
malfunction (ineffectuality?) exists? What if anything, may be served
by keeping the status quo?
|The FAQ I have my fingers in happens to be more of a resume of threads
|thoroughly discussed until agreed upon, and also a repository of just
|plain info.
That amounts to what in modern history of philosophy academics have called
a 'school' of philosophers. It is a very important historic development.
In modern times there is less of a need for the reproduction of 'schools',
since it is customary to acknowledge the sovereignty of the individual
will as a sign of respect and honor, treating the academic environment as
though it were a Platonic academy (I dispute this but am uninformed).
I would argue that if what you created addresses the most frequently
asked questions of the newsgroup and covers all the logical bases
immediately apparent to your group of dedicants, then it suffices for
now as a FAQ, indeed.
Until you get people challenging your baseline assumptions (which
should break the school into tributaries if it continues to grow),
then I still maintain you have a kind of reference file, though at
present this distinction may be unimportant to you (or, I suppose,
to anyone :>).
I say this because I don't think that Usenet supports all manner of
specialization in terms of its audience. I gather, for example,
that there are more newsgroups and posts concerning 'Magic the
Gathering' than about sustenance issues or proper moral behaviors,
and yet I'll bet the latter are of greater interest to most of the
world.
While I agree that the pragmatic is often the best way to proceed
with FAQ-creation (if the information is obvious and there, coalesce
it), I think it is very important to leave room to question the
assumptions being made in the text, as the FAQ also becomes a learning
experiment within the newsgroup. Spacing these FAQ revisions out by
several years can add very important documents to your filedirectory.
|As to ego building: I don't have any elevated standing in the newsgroup.
No, you are in a different role now. You are the 'FAQ Maintainer', who
will probably be seen as a reputable source by virtue of nearness to the
FAQ itself as the group matures.
|At least if anyone pays more heed to my articles than anyone elses, I
|never noticed.
It can become a gradual reputation-aura, especially to newbies.
tyaginator
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved