Kent Landfield <kent@landfield.com>:
#It's time to rethink where we see the FAQ process going in the future.
I think this is very important, though I'm not sure that projects to
steer it ought take place here.
#So where do I see FAQs going ? I think there are two different futures.
possibly more. I'll see if I can come up with more as I review this again.
#...FAQs slowly die out as Usenet is further and further blended in
#with web based distribution. news.answers becomes a glorified
#notification service that is nothing more than pointers to different
#web sites....
[etc.]
there are elements of this which are already true, some which never have
been and never will be. those which are inevitable we may as well take
into consideration. those which are impossible we ought dispense with
rather quickly.
as I see it, the value of a '(Usenet) FAQ' (especially in the subject areas
in which I specialize: esoterica, religion, philosophy) is as a tool to
address repeated, basic queries which overlook the depth of conversation
that would otherwise be possible if it weren't being steered toward
something less profound through ignorant participant turnover within the
forum in which the FAQ arises.
given this, a VARIETY of delivery methods is optimum, the objective
being getting the noise-dissolver into the hands of newbies who may
or may not have technical expertise in Internet navigation. some may
have FTP and/or email-based access, some may only have browser and/or
newsreader interfaces.
one of the problems with web-sites is that they are difficult to
maintain unless they are self-contained. they require UPKEEP, and,
unlike a static or periodically-revised FAQ, can easily become
full of deadwood links to nonexistent places without dedicated and
routinized attention.
an ASCII or a self-contained, web-based FAQ, on the other hand, can
function perfectly well for a great deal of time without much revision
at all, generalized redirective responses given to effectively
dissolve the apparent simplicity of the question which is frequently
asked (e.g. through redirection to a subgroup, such as 'Can magick be
black?' directed to alt.magick.ethics; through explosion of the
supposed parameters, such as 'Why is there a 'K' in 'magicK'?'
addressed with the common 3 or 4 responses and recommendations to 'find
more'; or through negating with a followup, such as 'Isn't Satanism the
systematic violation of little children?' reflecting FBI statistics
that deny this and various Satanist exhortations of nonviolence).
the examples above are static enough side-tracks in these fields that
the query can be stopped in its tracks, rechannelled to another forum,
or encouraged with a note that there are all kinds of possible responses.
this need not be impacted by developments in web-links if the site is
self-contained (all its links being on the main host) and can easily be
duplicated in ASCII format for FTP distribution (the alt.magick FAQ is
a good example here).
with this view of FAQs, the delivery mechanism is irrelevant as long as
the people who are participating in the particular forum are able to
acquire them. Usenet-oriented FAQs will always be necessary as long as
Usenet is a functioning forum (and it doesn't appear to be vaporizing
any time soon).
there are strong differences between the two media (WWW/Usenet) as
regards the type of information contained therein, the former being
mostly nested, static files (making it more a competitor of FTP and
Gopher), the latter a dialogue-based public discussion (putting it
more in the category of email lists and chat-nodes like IRC).
without a reason for a decrease in interest in dialogue, the forums
will continue to need a similar type of FAQ process, especially within
the more theoretical groups in which dialogue and comparison of opinion
is something which is VALUED. product-based and practical information
may well go the way of WWW and I think this should be encouraged. some
discussion-subjects are simply more effectively handled by that medium.
#Second path... Something is done to evolve the process and make it more of
#an ingrained resource in the evolving net as a whole. FAQ Authoring becomes
#something that people are proud to put on their resume'.
there has always been a danger with the glorification of authoring of FAQs
and this sometimes gets in the way of the creation of solid reference
creation in the form of compilation files or FAQs. instead of being a
mechanism to serve Usenet or the readers of a particular (esp. esoteric)
subject, it becomes an apology for a particular worldview, a propaganda
file with only tangental and isolated value. the ego of the author can
become an obstacle to the process which FAQs otherwise ostensibly
facilitate.
#The FAQ process fosters information distribution in a manner that
#benefits the readership and authors alike while encouraging more people
#to participate.
this is what I'd see emphasized, rather than that on the prestige of
authoring such a FAQ. the problem is how to make this happen and how
to avoid the traps inherent to the 'authority system'. it is as true
with books as it is in online files that those whose names are
associated with administration or reference are typically seen as
authorities. this is fine as long as it is warranted. however, the
way that 'the FAQ process' currently works (blessedly!) is
unrestrictive and unfiltered as to who prints what, making authority
and authorship separate categories, regardless of overlap.
it is for this reason that I have begun the process of diversification
within the appropriate forums in which I have some strong influence.
the alt.satanism newsgroup, for example, now has one 'official' (though
unregistered with news.answers!, created by a cabal within the newsgroup
including me); one registered, and one unregistered propagandist FAQs.
this is of BENEFIT to the reader, especially as I format them all for
the news.answers distribution process (still unsure how I can avoid
ranking them in some way) and give them all equal exposure. the reader
can discern a true DIFFERENCE OF PERSPECTIVE and come to appreciate it.
this of course flies in the face of what I think that FAQs *should*
be, but within alt.satanism (an anti-authority forum) it seems appropos.
#In the eyes of Usenet, FAQ authors are seen as volunteers contributing
#their time to make things better for all.
this may or may not be the case. some FAQ authors are in it as much to
learn about the subject themselves as to gain notoriety and attention.
with the advent of the sales of FAQs, the corporate influences will
inevitably make themselves felt within certain fields (I would not be
surprised if this were already the case within the product-dominated
practical fields of inquiry; e.g. "The Tools FAQ" produced by a paid
employee of Craftsman Tools and marketed with ordering information).
#Why does this process have to be a 'catch as catch can' type of
#process ? Why can't we put something in place that benefits the
#authors just as much as the readership ?
one reason to avoid this is precisely the example I gave above. once
there is some benefit to doing it, once it becomes more than a 'labor
of love', then we'll start seeing all the hassles (copyright, legal
disputes, squabbles, shutdowns) that go along with publishing books
offline.
if it is a group endeavor then there will be more reason to engage
legal suit to stop members of the cabal from utilizing the information
product (this is what it will become) in ways which the rest of the
cabal don't like.
certain slants on the subject matter may be emphasized due to the
biases of the volunteers (this has been the case since the
inception of FAQs), and this could become a very deep problem if
there were monetary or other incentives provided to those who were
already interested in keeping the forum (e.g. a Usenet group)
entrenched within one paradigm.
#I'd like to see the establishment of an FAQ Consortium. The FAQ
#Authors would be members of the consortium.
I thought that that is what this elist was. ;>
#- The FAQ Consortium would be a non-profit body that would be able to solicit
# corporate sponsorships to assist in the operation and funding. (Of course
# the corporations would be getting a tax break as well. (win-win))
the danger of this is that it develops a life of its own and begins to
take over the rest of the FAQ process, leaving those without corporate
sponsorship in a quagmire of decreased focus. this is to some extent
what is already happening in the WWW world, where corporations pay people
to develop websites and the biggest, sparkliest websites are those which
have a bankroll behind keeping them that way. they become WWW-COMMERCIALS.
one of the reasons that I stick to text (rather than moving to a
graphics-focussed browser) is that I *don't like television* and I want
to put roadblocks in place to *prevent the Internet from becoming a mere
replacement for television*. I see what you are describing as a possible
first step toward that horrible end: total corporate sponsorship of FAQs,
especially if there were not safeguards to prevent this (even these could
be changed over time with $ incentive through 'slippery slope').
#- The FAQ Consortium would work to facilitate direct connections to all
# major search engines linking the FAQs more and more into the heart of
# the net. People would be able to query FAQs as a body of information
# from all major search engines (win-win).
your 'win-win's are becoming less and less convincing here. you are now
talking about the centralizing reference information generally, which,
especially as combined with the corporate sponsorship, could have
disastrous consequences for diversity. of course it *needn't* have this
effect, and promulgated access to a diversified reference body would
indeed be a distinct advantage. this is what makes centralized WWWsites
like Yahoo so valuable.
then again, whether there is at all any such 'heart of the net' is truly
a valuable thing to reconsider. pervasiveness is different than
centralization. promoting listings with major search-engines is of
course an advantage, but FAQ-authors can list them NOW without hurdles,
so I'm not sure what the Consortium truly adds to this beyond a channel
for making sure members get *everywhere*.
#- The FAQ Consortium sponsors official sites for distribution of FAQs.
# This would benefit the authors, the readership and the consortium.
# Today there are no "official" mirrors of RTFM. (University's legal
# won't allow MIT to sanction any site as an "official" anything.)
with mirroring, the preservation of up-to-date information quality
is very valuable, yet I would ask whether the danger here of establishing
a kind of 'de facto authority' would be worth regulating that quality.
#- The FAQ Consortium would decide to allow or disallow advertisements and
# act as a focal point for authors and advertisers. Ads could be restricted
# to index pages or could be allowed on all types of pages. Authors would
# benefit individually if advertising was included on their pages.
if you had corporate sponsorship you'd be faced with possible conflicts
of interest, however.
#- Authors could directly be paid a majority percentage of any advertising
# that occurs on their individual FAQ pages. Authors as a whole would
# receive a distribution of monies for participating depending on other
# fiscal concerns.
unless there was some inhibiting mechanism whereby those FAQs which were
not part of this Consortium were less obvious or dissuaded from being seen,
why wouldn't copying the FAQ to a non-advertizement location become the
norm, people differentiating between 'source with ads' and 'reflection
(therefore possibly outdated) without ads'?
#- FAQ authors would have access to one or more of the official site systems
# to assure they have the facilities they need to update and maintain their
# postings. This does not restrict authors from using their own facilities,
# simply assures that they have access in the event they need it during
# transitions (such as job changes).
no more guarantee that updates would be made. also, how will you begin
to determine whose FAQ is 'real'? the present news.answers system (which
I like ALOT) doesn't bother attempting to enforce such a litmus, and thus
more than one (even mutually conflicting) 'FAQ' may be created (usually
these are REFerence files of propaganda, and the term 'FAQ' has become
homogenized so as to refer to any file of reference information even if
it doesn't contain questions!).
#- The FAQ Consortium could become a positive educational resource for K-12.
only if they were restricted from "sensitive" information. will you allow
the alt.sex.bondage FAQ there? the various alt.satanism FAQs? I suspect
that if you really want to make such a targetted audience then you'll be
pressured, with exposure, to damp down the controversy.
#- The FAQ Consortium could provide services to vendors such as allowing
# links to vendors sites for a fee. (i.e. FAQs about some product.) This
# type of non-participating member service could be separated from the
# participating members. It would be available from a link or a search
# engine.
it would also enable those firms with money to get links and therefore
exposure in otherwise 'informative' documents. encroaching commercialism.
#- The FAQ Consortium could sponsor additional projects around the net
# that advance information distribution (on-line writing improvement course,
# research allowing for more natural language FAQ lookup search techniques,
# etc).
this sounds industrious and valuable, though I wonder how easy it would
be to sustain. as I said, I think that the more practical, product-oriented
information modules/forums will become propaganda tools of the corporate
world, and so to involve oneself directly with this element strikes me as
dangerous and vanilla-fying, though it could be done without disaster if
some sorts of safeguards were included and maintained.
#- Sometimes getting a publisher to pay attention to a book idea is rough.
# The FAQ Consortium could assist FAQ authors in getting access to publishers
# regardless of whether or not the book is an FAQ based book.
and I would suggest that this is how 'FAQ-making' will be seen: as an
opportunity for writers to break into the market, possibly dissolving
the reference-value of the files which are produced (since the people
doing the writing will be predominantly *writers* rather than those
who have a passionate interest in the fields -- this shows up in book
publishing already and there are some in the FAQ-authoring field who
do indeed either have or go on to procure book contracts).
#- The FAQ Consortium might even produce a series of books based on major
# topic areas with the authors being paid for their efforts.
precisely, the breakdown of online free-information-sharing into
commercial investment and reproduction technology. I think there
are some valuable ideas you have here. I would only contrast this
with the visions (nightmares?) I have about the privatization of
cyberspace, wherein the 'commons' of the offline world having been
destroyed, this begins to take place online as well, through
corporate involvement in private information distribution.
#As one outcome of the thread, Nancy thought that it might be a good idea
#to register faqs.org before some other group grabbed it. I am happy to
#say that we have it. :-) The domain registration has even been paid. ;)
'we' must mean you here. I have a domain, myself, though I understand
it to be owned by an individual. they usually like to have a single
person's name on the 'ownership' field. makes billing easier. :>
#faqs.org is setup....
for what purpose? should it be discussed separately from the general
FAQ elist, or does it necessarily involve us all?
#There is a lot to discuss so let the discussion begin. If people think
#it would be better to have this discussion elsewhere, please reconsider.
#This could be a valuable evolution for FAQs and for you and we need your
#input...
my understanding is that this forum is not designed for projects of
this sort, and is supposed to be MUCH less voluminous. don't get me
wrong, if you do set up another elist for this discussion I'd like to
be made aware of it and may join in for a bit if I'm invited. thanks
for bringing up these issues. I do think they are very important.
#Search the Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive at http://www.landfield.com/faqs/
~~~
is this acquiring an identity and ego? :> is there only one Usenet
Hypertext FAQ Archive? or are there lots of them but without names
like this? perhaps I should have a look and shut up for a while. :>
nagasiva
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
---------------------------
author/editor
alt.magick FAQ:
http://www.hollyfeld.org/amgkfaq
alt.satanism FAQ
ftp://ftp.hollyfeld.org/pub/Esoteric/Usenet/FAQs/FAQ.asatnsm.9608
contributor to several FAQs (alt.religion.wicca; alt.suicide.holiday, etc.)
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved