[pct-l] more on a FAQ

[David Plotnikoff]

Folks, fyi: This is an extension of an e-mail exchange tonight 
between Scott and I ....

Scott,

Agreed. I really wanted to hammer home that it is NOT the job of the 
editorial team to adjudicate and decide any of the hot button issues 
--- or any issues at all, for that matter. All they have to do is lay 
things out clearly: "This is fact (ie: legal consequences for not 
carrying a can in NPS territory). This is opinion (ie: "You're 
commiting a moral crime and sentencing a bear to death if your 
un-canned food gets taken")." The furthest they might venture in 
guiding a newbie: "X1 is a largely settled consensus opinion. While 
X2 is a minority opinion."

So here's the sticky wicket where you and I are going to disagree: I 
am a professional editor and author, with 30 years experience. And I 
have *never* seen a group editing process that worked well without a 
"last word" -- ie: a top editor. You need a master editor to shape 
the consensus document into something that's cohesive and reads like 
more than cobbled together posts. You need ONE editor reviewing and 
redacting the work of six to 12 really engaged contributors, who are 
going to hash a lot out amongst themselves. Trust me on this: You 
really DO want to have one person to herd everything together, 
eliminate redundancy, confusion, rewrite for consistent style, 
grammar, etc. Without that final pass-through -- and push back (ie: 
"You really need to add more on subject X and maybe reconsider your 
needlessly provocative phrasing on issue Y") what you have is a 
collection of individual posts.

Consider this example: If a top-level point on the outline is "when 
to start" and entry 1A is "The Kickoff" and 1A-1 is "The Herd" you at 
the end of the process are going to want to have one person who can 
place Strider, WS Monte, L-Rod, that whackjob Postholer 
Boycott-the-Kickoff guy, et al, in some sort of balance and context. 
These kinds of polemic positions don't naturally balance themselves 
out. (If they did, flame wars on Usenet would not be burning for 
decades at a stretch...) It takes one rational and dedicated human to 
set them in balance.

Good luck.

Nominations anyone? Don't all raise your hands at once.

DP

... who has been on this Listserv for nine years and knows he still 
has a lot to learn from the perspectives of his fellow community 
members.


>>as a starting point so newcomers can have a baseline of knowledge
>
>Exactly! Equally important it introduces them to questions they may 
>not have thought to ask.
>
>>the FAQ writing process should be based on community memory
>>as well as outside source material.
>
>You bet! With a thousand pair of eyes and memorys, together with the 
>archives, we have everything we need.
>
>>I am against a Wiki structure...for the same reason other folks are: ...
>>any bozo can come in and hose a Wiki entry.
>
>Wikipedia is an ideal example of why that statement is NOT true. 
>Wiki's work very, very well and people generally behave. In the case 
>of a email list FAQ, I don't believe a wiki (or forum) is the right 
>tool for the job. Too much overhead.
>
>>I hope the editing team is a good one -- particularly at building consensus.
>>You don't have to agree on any of the issues. You just
>>have to agree to treat the different positions in an evenhanded manner.
>
>Who better to write about trail angels than a trail angel? Who 
>better to write about the PCT-L mechanics than the administrator? 
>Who better to write about a gathering than a organizer? Who better 
>to write about the PCTA than an employee? Who better to write about 
>gear than a thousand eager hikers reading this list? In the absense 
>of a defacto authority, surely someone will step in and it will get 
>done.
>
>Apathy is the only hurdle.
>
>-postholer
>
>------------------------------------
>Trails : http://Postholer.Com
>Journals : http://Postholer.Com/journal
>Mobile : http://Postholer.Com/mobi