Actually, if Yves' FAQs were in Minimal Digest Format, he
could direct the reader to the specific section on
www.faqs.org. For example, I could direct a questioner on
hemoglobin A1c to
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/diabetes/faq/part2/section-9.html
While checking the format of Yves' FAQs, I noticed another
relevant point. The archive has the following files:
esperanto-faq
esperanto/faq/part1
esperanto/faq/part2
Presumably the first is an earlier version, replaced by the
latter two. Yet it probably shows up in Kent's figures as
"abandoned since 1995". I would guess that there are quite
a few such cases -- though not enough to change the outline
of Kent's figures. When a maintainer changes the archive
name, deleting the old one requires additional action; it
is not automatic.
On the flip side, the misc.health.diabetes FAQ is on
autopilot, being posted every two weeks. I assume this
counts as "updated" in Kent's figures. Even if it doesn't,
I've made minor changes in the past six months -- but only
minor ones compared with what I'd like to do (so why am I
writing here ...). How many FAQs are maintained, but
minimally?
> In the perception of the reader is appears you prefer the web over the
> Usenet distribution. That was my point.
I think two forces are at work here. First, it's no longer
feasible to say "look for the FAQ in the newsgroup". The
days are long past when news servers normally kept articles
for 30 days; many now keep articles for only a couple of
days. Until and unless we can convince most news admins to
keep news.answers for far longer than they keep other
newsgroups, pointing to a location outside Usenet is
essential. This is not by preference. At least by directing
readers to rtfm or faqs.org, we are directing them to
Usenet archives rather than to "real" web sites.
Also, I can give someone a URL to one section of my FAQ on
faqs.org (example above) more easily than I can direct them
to a single section of an article in the newsgroup, even if
I can assume that their newsreader bursts digests, which I
can't assume. Perhaps this is an argument for better
navigation within newsreaders. Anyone want to bet on the
chance of getting a new standard universally implemented
any time soon?
Yves Bellefeuille writes:
> I have no idea whether abandoned FAQs can be removed; I assume they can.
> However, I think that, in most cases, even the oldest FAQ can still be
> useful to someone, so why remove it?
In some cases, old FAQs can be misleading or even
dangerous. For example, a list of web sites on a particular
topic is probably worse than useless if it's two years old.
Health-related FAQs should not be allowed to linger if not
reviewed for timeliness, as old advice might have the
effect of leading someone away from a new treatment which
would help them. This latter case could even become a legal
liability for the author.
Edward Reid
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved