Interesting point: I mention that I think a given practice is, in my own
opinion, cool. You, by contrast, reply unilaterally that it is not --
apparently you consider your own opinion unassailably correct. The
remainder of this email will address that.
>How soon do you think it would it be
> before marketting people realize *.answers is a perfect way to get
> your foot in the door?
Sorry, too late. Go visit any of a number of mostly pointless sites
like mcdonalds.com: you'll almost invariably find a section that,
whether explicitly called a FAQ or not, is in fact a FAQ, Mac.
(Couldn't resist.)
FAQs specifically for the purpose of selling product are neither a
problem nor the inevitable destination of all FAQs. A FAQ is simply an
evolved technical solution to a common problem. That the solution can
be applied to an entire range of problems is a feature, not a bug.
I see in your emails a kind of reactionism. Is the form a kind of holy
prayer that can only be chanted by initiates consecrated by the high
priests of *.answers? Of course not, yet you apparently see practices
that fall outside the bounds of past practices as somehow wrong, perhaps
even immoral.
>"Gee whiz, after writing this here FAQ I've
> sold a lot of units." Scary prospect: I can see it now, a toothpaste
> FAQ by the people at Colgate.
You couldn't have picked a better random example:
http://www.colgate.com/faq/ And you know what? I think that that FAQ
is perfectly cool, too.
> And why are their tools nifty?
Having created the MFC FAQ, Stingray's tools are no doubt more nifty
than they otherwise would have been. As you should know, one of the
best ways to learn a subject is to try to teach it to someone else.
Having taught MFCers how to more effectively use MFC, Stingray's FAQ
maintainers undoubtedly understand MFC better, which enables them to
create better tools.
I can testify that this principle has worked for me: I'm a much better
Winsock programmer now than before I began maintaining the FAQ. Part of
that I could have gained simply through personal experience on my
non-FAQ projects, but much of it can be traced directly to items in my
FAQ.
The traditional FAQ society is centered around a kind of "respect
bank". The greater your contribution to the society, the more credits
get put into your account. Those credits can be used as "pull" in the
community. If, for example, the maintainers of faqs.org stepped in on
this debate and made a pronouncement, I'd give it more respect than one
from a fellow FAQ keeper.
Stingray Software, the keepers of the MFC FAQ, have also got an account
in the FAQ community's respect bank. As it happens, funds from that
bank are partially transferable to other banks, such as the bank of
public opinion of their software products. One of Stingray's motives as
a kind of philanthropist-teacher is to facilitate that transfer. Do we
think less of the philanthropist as a result?
>Do they have a standard disclaimer
> on the FAQ that would at least hint to some bias?
Yes: "The MFC FAQ is graciously sponsored by Stingray Software. Stingray
Software was founded to create and market MFC extensions."
Beyond the front page, there is virtually no mention of Stingray or its
products. It's obvious that the FAQ's purpose is not as a marketing
vehicle for Stingray, but simply an interesting project that one of its
employees was working on. In exchange for letting him work on it on
their time and hosting it on their web site, Stingray gets a few
mentions in the FAQ and a healthy deposit of respect from the MFC
community.
> Ahhh. If it makes so little money why clutter your webpage with it?
I do have a motive for putting that image and those links in the site,
and I'm certainly not ashamed of either the act or the results. I don't
mind saying what you apparently are embarrassed to hear: the links bring
me money. I continue on this topic below.
> > The way I look at it, I am providing a net service, and one of the
> > aspects of that service is to point Winsockers at good books. If
> > Amazon.com will pay me if I point my readers at their site, so much the
> > better.
>
> Right. Because of your fine selfless act, Amazon.com should profit.
> But you're not really profitting, so it's ok, because the readers
> profit at the end of the day. Love the logic.
Your argument works because you're attacking the dictionary meaning of a
term I used, altruistic. In fact, my actions as a FAQ maintainer aren't
altruistic in the strict sense -- neither are yours or any other FAQ
maintainer's for that matter. I don't know if there is a more precise
term for our practice, but it starts from altruism, modified by a
realization that we will get some kind of return from our efforts.
Most truly altruistic acts benefit the actor's society. If the act does
not destroy the actor, the actor also benefits: "a rising tide lifts all
the boats."
My dictionary uses as an example of altruism a bird giving a warning
call when a predator approaches. This warning also gives the bird's
position away, and so reduces its chances for survival. Yet even if the
bird gets eaten as a result of its call, the bird still benefits: its
progeny are saved.
the bird gets away: is the act no longer altruistic? Of course not.
And yet, the bird benefits even more: not only are its progeny saved, it
may gain a kind of respect in the community.
I'm now stretching things a bit for birds, but it's easy to see how we
can translate the same concepts into the human sphere. This idea is so
pervasive in our culture that some of our greatest artifacts, our books
and films, frequently build on this theme. How many movies have you
seen where the selfless hero risks his life and in the end gets the
girl?
When I put it that way it sounds cheesy, but the fact remains that we
created these artifacts because they reflect one of the principal ideas
of our culture: selfless acts are deemed worthwhile, and therefore often
get rewarded in some way.
FAQs like yours and mine are built on that premise. So does it bother
me that by my actions I'm increasing the stock value of Amazon.com? Not
one bit, because thereby I benefit, therefore I'm more likely to put
effort into the FAQ, which benefits my readers. Everyone wins, but
somehow you've managed to see a problem in this situation.
-- = Warren Young, maintainer of the Winsock Programmer's FAQ at: = http://www.cyberport.com/~tangent/programming/winsock/ = = ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved