> On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Andrew A Gill wrote:
> > >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
Perhaps Andrew feels that the disclaimer should be added so that the
*.answers team won't be sued by, say Coca-Cola, because of unflattering
comments in say, a Pepsi-Cola FAQ?
Perhaps we should go all the way and add disclaimers for the maintainers
and our sources disclaiming any responsibility for the contents of the
FAQ?
Whatever happened to your Constitution and the guarantee of the right to
free speech, association, etc?
> 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.
I disagree with having other maintainers vote on whether a FAQ is
accepted or not. The current practice seems fine, a faq is accepted
when the maintainer demonstrates the technical ability to properly
submit his/her 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]
So it becomes a matter for the local police, the disclaimer adds no
value in this situation.
> > This is why they want to add the disclaimer. I'll add it, eventually.
B.S.
The reason David wants to add the disclaimer is because certain
newsgroup faqs, such as the alt.sex groups, alt.skinheads, etc., faqs
contain contraversial material and certain right-wing reactionary kooks
and groups will strenuously object to the material being "approved" of
by anybody, in any way, shape, and/or form.
David himself stated that he was getting involved in flamewars because
of this and of course that raises the question of, why doesn't he just
send the kooks a form letter explaining the meaning of the approved
header and ignroe any further mail from them?
Even better, why doesn't David simply point the kooks at the FAQ
submission/approval FAQ, and/or mail them the relevant parts?
David seems to feel that it's better to ask everybody to add the
disclaimer to their faq rather than risk hurting the feelings of the
select few for whom the disclaimer would add any real value.
> 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.
It's also blatantly obvious when all the available material on the FAQ
approval process makes quite clear what the Approved header means.
-- Doug Herbert - CBS http://www.tradskin.org - Home of the Skinhead FAQ You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved