[HP4GU-FAQ] Re: FAQ roles, and Dark Mark

[Amanda Geist]

> Amanda:
> Since you asked [what I do around FAQ]. I signed on because I am an
> editor. I help proof draft-finals, and check links. There hasn't
> been much call for this particular skill set lately; nobody has
> posted a draft-final text for proofing or link-checking in rather a
> long time. I stand ready when this does occur. Not everyone on this
> list is here to write; there are FAQ production support roles.
>
> Tom:
> So, am I correct in understanding that everyone else does the work,
> and you proofread it? *That's* what your contribution to FAQ is?
>
> I'd - in all fairness - argue that there's not much call for this
> particular skill set at all. IMHO, it's much more important for
> people to be *writing* FAQ's than simply checking others' work -
> particularly when there's no work to be checked at present. Idle
> hands, you know? Well, idle hands, and the difference between
> positive and negative contributions to projects. Some people come up
> with tons of ideas. Others contribute by shooting ideas down.

(wry grin) Spoken like so many people I deal with every day. *sigh* Editors
are not about changing people's work and they are not about "shooting stuff
down." The proofreading function--whoever does it--is to provide a "second
set of eyes" which have not seen the material before. The compilers and
writers of these things have seen their text so often, they aren't *reading*
it anymore. They know *exactly* what they mean. And a proofreader "test
audience" provides a filter for typos, as well as "this is what I got from
this sentence, is that what you meant?"

You were not here, I guess, in the very busy days when the current set of
FAQs was being produced. There was actually a lot to be done in the
link-checking and reading-over department. I didn't do all of it, by any
stretch. We help where we can, to the extent of our committable resources.

> So, may I suggest that you contribute to something else around here,
> since the skills of which you're in possession don't seem to be of
> much use at present... and if Eileen is correct, they haven't been
> of much use for the past year - at least.

You may suggest it; I don't know if I can. Not everyone has the same amount
of time to offer; not everyone is good at the same sorts of skills. I don't
think that the rationale that it hasn't been used lately, is a good one to
conclude that my skill set won't be needed again. From what you and some
other writers have said, it may be, soon.

As soon as new FAQs get close to roughed out, some of us who are here to
support the writers can get involved again. Why do you think I've been
urging people to work on stuff? I can't do what I do, until some of you
writer-folk do what you do, and I have not liked feeling superfluous.

> Amanda (re: Dark Mark draft):
> Way cool! I'm looking forward to the Dark Mark stuff; I'd given a
> list of posts to Porphyria back when she was doing Snape, that
> discussed Dark Mark stuff, but she (correctly, I think) decided that
> it wasn't Snape-specific enough to include with that one, and set
> the list aside to help support a later FAQ. I wasn't sure if there
> was, overall, enough stuff for Dark Mark by itself, or if it would
> be rolled into a larger one.
>
> Tom:
> Yeah, I found that list of your stuff in the Files section, and all
> of the downthread responses to your posts have been very - *VERY* -
> handy... especially since don't seem to be very many posts out there
> on that stuff. Thanks for compiling that - and Porphyria, for
> putting it up there in html format.
>
> Personally, I insist - without having actually been crossed, yet -
> on including the Dark Mark in the FP, because I'm really interested
> in it, even if there aren't a lot of posts out there. And it was
> GulPlum and his breakdown of the "Morsmordre" incantation (I don't
> speak French, so the whole "Eat Death" thing was completely news to
> me) that got me excited about it a while back.
>
> Actually, your posts on the main list, and the stuff that you
> compiled are - basically - the groundwork for the outline, plus as
> many other posts on the subject that I could find.
>
> Oh, and there was an absolutely *amazing* discussion between you,
> Elkins, and Porphyria that resulted in a lot of discussion on the
> subject back in the thirty-thousands era which is very cool,
> although I'm trying to branch off of that as much as possible. And I
> think you'd be happy to lern that I'm trying to sneak in as much
> relevant Snape stuff (without actually treading on the Snape FP) as
> I can... we'll see how much people let me get away with that,
> though. ;-)

Happy to sneak Snape in any way possible. And Porphyria and Elkins *are*
amazing.

I wasn't able to follow the post-OoP Dark Mark threads, so I've no idea what
they covered--is your FAQ gathering those in too? (really want to read this;
it's "Death Eaters," right?) I remember a couple subject lines going by,
that caught my eye; I imagine you're up-to-date on the main list, though.

~Amanda