> 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?
Why would they? They just archive it. If it is really a legal matter
I'll be happy to add the disclaimer. *.answers archivers shouldn't
have to deal with being sued over a "controversial FAQ." Even though
it may seem noble, it is certainly not their burden.
> 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?
I do :) On all FAQs I mention I am only responsible for the contents
and not the contributors. I also mention no one is responsible for
damages incurred from the contents be it direct or indirect. It's a
pretty standard disclaimer I have on all my FAQs.
> Whatever happened to your Constitution and the guarantee of the right to
> free speech, association, etc?
Hmm. The disclaimer would not waive this right. We're extending the
argument to another realm if we brought free speech into this. Show
us why the disclaimer would take away our right to free speech etc.
> 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.
If you wanted *.answers to give some quality branding that is one
way of doing it. Of course there is no reason why *.answers should.
I am guilty of extending the argument now.
> 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.
*rant-on*
These kooks should stop using the net and return to their
happy-go-lucky world on planet earth. But they are lurk in the
networks nonetheless.
*rant-off*
> 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?
He mentioned it caused him emotional damage of sorts. I have no idea
what he went through but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that
it is causing him considerable trouble.
> 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.
I would like to see David's rationale on how the disclaimer will
prevent kooks from harassing him (if that's what they did). I have
no problem adding it if I believed it did.
> It's also blatantly obvious when all the available material on the FAQ
> approval process makes quite clear what the Approved header means.
Yes. If you can post an article, find a newsgroup, and add the right
headers you should be able to get it archived on *.answers. A bit
scary. I did think that the *.answers people at least had some
internal "should we archive this" discussion. It seems they don't
and I was wrong. Now I feel silly for sighing at the typos on the
material I submitted for approval :)
-- 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