In message <3B2DB28C.25EB814C@swbell.net>
Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
[snip]
> > However, as far as your FAQs are concerned, the *.answers moderators
> > don't care which of you is right. We don't get involved in internal
> > newsgroup politics and if both of you submit your FAQs to *.answers both
> > will be approved (providing they comply with the guidelines on form).
>
> This seems to sluff off an important function of *.answers moderators.
> If more than one faqs per newsgroup is accepted for archiving and
> distribution via news.answers, then the value of news.answers as a filter
> is diminished.
news.answers is not designed to exist as some sort of filter: it's a
repository for FAQs. There can be many FAQs within one home newsgroup,
posted by many different people; these can conflict or not.
Aside from concerns of censorship, asking us as moderators to make decisions
over which of two FAQs is the most worthy to be considered "the" FAQ for a
newsgroup is, I think, impossible. The *.answers guidelines are almost purely
based around issues of format, not of content, and we exist to ensure those
guidelines are kept, not as regulators of FAQs.
> Another consideration is maintaining interest in faqs keeping, at
> least vis-a-vis news.answers. If a faqs keeper is not supported by
> *.answers moderators as maintainer of _the_ faqs for a newsgroup, then
> important motivations for participating in news.answers are much reduced.
Another thing we don't exist for is to perpetuate any sort of hierarchy
within newsgroups, or to promote "official" FAQs.
I don't see posting to *.answers as providing some sort of recognition that
you are "the" FAQ keeper for a newsgroup. You post to *.answers because it
means your FAQ gets well propagated and automatically archived, not for
fame and fortune.
> Evidently, the faqs keeper for alt.spooky is no longer supplying
> updates as agreed. If this situation has persisted for some extended
> period (e.g. three months, eight months, or whatever), then, it seems
> reasonable to recognize someone else who submits a faqs as _the_ faqs
> keeper for the newsgroup.
Our records suggest that there has never been a *.answers-approved FAQ for
alt.spooky, so I see no reason for the *.answers moderators to get involved.
As I've already said, anyone is welcome to submit a FAQ for alt.spooky for
*.answers approval, and if it complies with the guidelines on form it will
be approved for posting. The /only/ thing that means, though, is simply that
it's approved for *.answers - not that its maintainer is "the" FAQ keeper
for a newsgroup.
Cheers,
Nick
--
I heard the church bells hollowing out the sky
Deep beyond deep, like never-ending stars.
-- John Betjeman, "Summoned by Bells"
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here
*************************************************************
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved