Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!newsfeeder.ewetel.de!eweka.nl!lightspeed.eweka.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <1426370.9LCISzPTdA@PointedEars.de> From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:54:16 +0100 User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&. <$D5iY2DKyC4QFwcL@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> <4PV2RQBpIX4QFwNk@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD> Followup-To: comp.lang.javascript MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 41 NNTP-Posting-Date: 02 Jan 2013 20:54:18 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: b3fbff20.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=QjhFJcBTS_Y1`E>oC;JXEZMcF=Q^Z^V3X4Fo<]lROoRQ8kFRHB\TCF5a@UR X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:17915 Patricia Shanahan wrote: > On 1/2/2013 7:39 AM, John G Harris wrote: >> I've been talking all along about your proposed change to the FAQ, and >> about the general principle of whether the FAQ readers should be told to >> be cautious about some of the documents it points to. > > The documents it points to are on the Internet, so of course the readers > should be cautious about them :) > > Even if you reviewed all external link content and only pointed to > material you agreed with today, the targets of the external links could > change tomorrow. Marking any individual links with indications of > unreliability could create an inappropriate expectation of reliability > for other links. > > Some web sites associate a we-are-not-responsible disclaimer with all > their associated links. I'm not sure whether the FAQ needs to go that > far, but that is what you should do if you are worried about the risk of > readers attaching too much trust to external links. I think that is essentially a good idea. A legal disclaimer would probably not be needed (the FAQ does not give any guarantees anyway), but a general note along the lines that, although care had been taken to select the links once, the referred content cannot be checked regularly for correctness by the editor(s) (unless someone volunteers for that part). This could be accompanied by a link to the existing FAQ section where it says how you can contribute to the FAQ, pointing out that you can suggest links to apparently inappropriate content for review by the editor(s) and, by extension, the subscribers of the newsgroup. PointedEars, editor of the “FAQ for comp.lang.javascript” [1] ___________ [1] -- Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript. -- Richard Cornford, cljs,