Just a quick note. David is doing this out of pure concern, and I
realize that. I don't mean to act particularly absurd but I do have
some concerns even with Andrew's response. And yes I know it is a
small change.
> On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Thamer Al-Herbish
> <shadows@whitefang.com> writes:
> >There is one aspect of this header that is a bit distressing. It's
> >almost like saying "*.answers will archive anything in a readable
> >format." Surely you do look over FAQs to make sure they're
> >worthwhile?
>
> I was always under the impression that the news.answers folk would reject
> a FAQ if they felt that there was no need, but aside from that, there's
> not much that will cause a PIP to be rejected. Would you people accept a
> FAQ for alt.null?
Yes I would imagine basic common sense would do for judging things.
But I'm not a moderator and have never had trouble getting 3 FAQs in.
> >I also agree with the poster who mentioned that non-controversial
> >FAQs -- a technical one where you can't get controversial unless
> >you're exceptionally degenerated -- shouldn't be forced to do this.
>
> On the contrary, this is where the disclaimer is most necessary. For
> example, the sci.physics FAQ was--uh--wrong. (does anyone have a FAQ
> about the erroneous sci.physics FAQ?)
Heh. I'm not familiar with this saga. It sounds like net kookage if
the maintainer is told enough times that he's wrong, and does not
correct his FAQ. I would imagine a philosophy FAQ would have more
trouble being unbiased and straight to the point. But a Physics one?
:)
Not that I don't believe you, but I think a disclaimer is the last
place to start dealing with possible kooks. From the top of my head
it would seem interesting if other FAQ maintainers can vote in new
FAQs. But that's just off the top of my head.
> Plus, once a FAQ gets approved, you don't have to get reapproval unless
> you change the headers or seriously change the contents of the FAQ.
>
> So theoretically, you could get a FAQ approved that includes this lines:
>
> printf() has the form
> printf("text string %s %d %f", string a, int b, float c)
>
> and imediately change it to:
>
> This is a death threat to Guy Fawkes.
> I am going to [description of murder]
Right but how many people do this? I mean really. There's no way to
guard against this kind of abuse without a dedicated team of human
slaves that are willing to re-read FAQs and check their
authenticity. I think this happens when FAQs are posted to
newsgroups. The maintainer has to be responsible enough to correct
the FAQ. If the maintainer is not it falls on the shoulders of the
*.answers moderators to decide whether or not to still carry the
FAQ.
> This is why they want to add the disclaimer. I'll add it, eventually.
The logic is flawed here. The disclaimer will not stop abuse. All
its saying is that the *.answers people are not responsible for the
contents. I think its blatantly obvious when the FAQ has a list of
contributors and the maintainers name on it.
I'll happily add it if it becomes mandatory. I would rather not.
Nothing in my FAQs mention the *.answers people as being
responsible. All the FAQs list the contributors and myself as
authors. The only mention of *.answers is at the beginning where I
tell the reader where the FAQ is posted.
-- Thamer Al-Herbish PGP public key: shadows@whitefang.com http://www.whitefang.com/pgpkey.txt [ The Secure UNIX Programming FAQ http://www.whitefang.com/sup/ ]
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved