I have a form letter I now send to maintainers-of-record for FAQs that appear
to be dead. I can modify it to offer these 2 choices.
> ... think about a policy to keeping them in a special spot, perhaps moving
> them to "non-maintained" directory that is listed with "all" the search
> engines..
Hmm. This would be possible, but somewhat defeats the idea of trying to use
the archive names as a hierarchy that tries to keep similar information
together. Of course, it has failed in that goal anyway [ref: FAQ book
categorization and indexing debate], so one more nail in the coffin may not
really hurt.
> The second group might be ones dealing with medical and legal issues, current
> events and the like, which may at the very least need a clear disclaimer that
> the information may be out of date. Even there, subject to the disclaimer,
> the information may be of interest as a sign of the way things were, rather
> than as information to act on.
Retiring FAQ maintainers or complaining newsgroup subscribers would have to
tell us which category their FAQ is in. Part of the principle behind 'no
content moderation' is freedom of speech and freedom from lawsuits, but part
is also that it's easier and more honest if we don't pretend to understand the
content and issues around it.
The problem would be how to decide what to do when the maintainer has vanished
(we usually try to mail to former maintainers, if we still have their
addresses on record). I suppose we could post in the original groups asking
for advice but that would generate a lot MORE mail for us unless we added more
automation for handling replies.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved