SnapeFAQ update

[Cindy C.]

Amanda suggested:

<snip praise for Snape FAQ>

> With respect to (2)--I am unwilling to mess with another author's 
>material without permission, and Porphyria wrote the superb 
>standalone essay.

I'm of two minds about this, honestly.  On the one hand, I like the 
idea of not monkeying around with someone else's original.

On the other hand, I would hate for someone doing an update to feel 
constrained by what is already on the page.  Sometimes I find it 
harder to edit/update/improve what someone else wrote than it would 
be to start from scratch.  

On the third hand, some of the existing FAQs won't be strictly 
relevant after OoP, but have historical significance, if you will.  
The "Predictions" and "Mysteries" FPs will be totally different after 
OoP, and it would be nice to preserve the originals because it might 
be entertaining to look back to past theories.

One solution might be to leave it to the discretion of the FAQer 
doing the update.  In some situations, the writer may wish to start 
from scratch, but in others, the original material could be worked in 
as a separate section or, as Amanda suggested, the new material could 
be appended to the old.

On balance, though, my feeling is that the current FAQ writer 
probably shouldn't feel too constrained in how they handle things.  I 
remember that when Pippin and I updated the "Mysteries" FP, we just 
changed it around, continuing to give credit to the original author.  
We didn't keep various theories in the original intact simply for the 
sake of doing so.  Other approaches would have worked, of course, but 
the FPs can be very long, so perhaps there is merit in trying to 
produce one cohesive updated FAQ.

Am I straddling the fence?  Yup.

> And could the management please hurry up and pay for my Kwikspell
> subscription? I need to know how to embed links and stuff.
> 
> ~Amanda

Ah.  Another vote for "squib."  ;-)

Cindy