Re: Q: call it authorized faqs or what?
Robert Kiesling (kiesling@localhost.ix.netcom.com)
Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:08:43 -0500
> > Every commercial site has an faq it seems...
>
> Indeed, but I'm afraid there's nothing we can do about that.
> "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", and even if the
> commercial FAQ lists aren't very sincere, their existence is one
> of the prices we pay for our own success in defining the form.
>
> If you want to make your FAQ lists stand out as embodying the
> very best that the traditional, noncommercial net has (had?)
> to offer, do it by making them as accurate, unbiased, and
> nonselfcongratulatory as possible. Post them to the net and
> let them speak for themselves. If readers value them, those
> readers will let it be known that the FAQ lists in question
> are things of value and discrimination, and you won't even
> have to try.
I think that the disclaimer that dalamb suggested earlier this year
serves this purpose very nicely already. FAQ's indeed are considered
a literary genre now. A reader can make his or her own judgement
about the accuracy or value of information that it contains, but only
for his or her particular circumstances. I would think that any other
attempt to define the FAQ, especially by its content would only be
condescending. Readers can figure it out for themselves.
> Maintaining a traditional FAQ list is a labor of love, and I
It must be, because no one's yet given me a cent for it...
Robert Kiesling
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
faq-admin@faqs.org
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved