in reply to Give a fish or teach to fish?

I think a closely related question to yours is
"How good are our current FAQs ?Are they really useful/good/helpful
or does their content send to the user a message homophonic to FAQ?"

It would be very nice to see better and more encompassing FAQs.

A related quote to your question is due to Edsger W. Dijkstra:

"And a second, but not less important challenge is how to mould what
you have achieved in solving the first problem, into a teachable
discipline: it does not suffice to hone your own intellect (that
will join you in your grave), you must teach others how to hone theirs."

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Give a fish or teach to fish?
by apl (Monsignor) on Apr 04, 2008 at 15:29 UTC
    I think a closely related question to yours is "How good are our current FAQs ?"

    A number of SoPW posts would seem to indicate that the poster hadn't read the FAQs at all. It doesn't matter how the document gets refined if it isn't read.

[reply]
      No.
      A good FAQ should always exist.
      ALSO, making it KNOWN to the users that the FAQ DOES INDEED EXIST is the problem at hand.
      So, put the FAQ FIRST in your documentation.That is my suggestion.
[reply]
        I'm not arguing with you. Quite the opposite, I agree with you.

        What I'm saying (poorly) is that the top of each page of this site says Q&A. The Information bar on the right includes PerlMonks FAQ, Guide to the Monastery and Perl FAQ.

        More than a few posters have never taken the time to look at these resources before posting a question. How do you compel a visitor to the site to read the fabulous FAQ (RTFFAQ?)?

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion