Posted: Jan 01, 2011 3:42 pm
Some of which I must say should NOT be done, or only with caution and/or not the way you said.natselrox wrote:I compiled a few for the Bio-section...
An FAQ entry is supposed to be a quick introduction or summary, not a small book.
I've seen threads that go on about this for pages, but not read much of them. Do they go on like that because of Creationists barging in, or because of people with serious scientific perspectives merely having a semantic dispute over real-world application of the word "random" in different scientific contexts? If the latter, then an FAQ entry should avoid delving into such a conflict and stick to debunking the Creationist claims that it has nothing to do with.
Do those Q really seem to you to be FA? (And by people who come here to ask?) A trap that "FAQ" authors tend to fall into but should be avoided is answering questions that aren't actually frequently asked, but are just on the answerers' minds.natselrox wrote:Medicine
1. What are actual risks of using the mobile phone?
3. A gene for homelessness - how true is that?
6. What is cancer? Why are we not able to treat it?
7. What is HIV? Why are we not able to counter it?
9. What is common cold?
Psychology and Neuroscience
8. What is optogenetics?
This one isn't even really a question, so I'll have to presume that, by putting it under the heading "psychology and neuroscience", you really meant for the question to be "Races: Are there psychological or neurological differences?". But even then, either an FAQ entry about it will only be an excuse for the author to preach the standard politically correct line in one way or another, or, if the author doesn't do that, it will become a target for a bunch of others to act all enraged and offended over because the author didn't do it, so the screaming buries the science.
Bound to turn into a mere opinion piece, a blog entry