FAQs/REFs/COMs, Legitimacy (was Re: Style/History of FAQs (was...)) (fwd)
Tung-chiang Yang (tcyang@netcom.com)
Mon, 5 May 1997 11:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Forwarded message:
> From FAQ-Maintainers@consensus.com Mon May 5 11:40:18 1997
> Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 11:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-Id: <199705051815.LAA09519@kudo20.kudonet.com>
> From: tyagi@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com (nagasiva)
> Subject: FAQs/REFs/COMs, Legitimacy (was Re: Style/History of FAQs (was...))
>
> (deleted)
>
> anybody can write one who has the technical ability. it will be
> accepted by the news.answers folks as long as it is believable and
> is formatted correctly. thus there isn't any further process of
> 'allowing' or 'authorization' as far as I know (perhaps exceptions
> are made for moderated newsgroups). I agree there has developed,
> over the years, a certain amount of (I'd say often unwarranted)
> prestige and authority attached to FAQ-writing, and peer-pressure
> does tend to keep competing FAQs from developing.
To the best of my knowledge, news.answers moderation teams only deal
with the headers and they do not and cannot judge whether it is
believable or not.
As for developing new FAQ's, unless you hold totally different views
from the original FAQ maintainer (likely for news.admin.net-abuse.misc,
say :) ), unless the original FAQ maintainer no longer improves his/her
stuffs regularly so it becomes obsolete, there is no point to work on
a new FAQ to be "better" than the first work.
> (deleted)
Tung-chiang Yang tcyang@netcom.com