+ "How to handle corrections or clarifications?" - While I have done my best to ensure accuracy, errors will no doubt exist. And as anyone can see from reading the Cypherpunks list, nearly *any* statement made about any subject can produce a flurry of rebuttals, caveats, expansions, and whatnot. Some subjects, such as the nature of money, the role of Cypherpunks, and the role of reputations, produce dozens of differing opinions every time they come up! - So, it is not likely that my points here will be any different. Fortunately, the sheer number of points here means that not every one of them will be disagreed with. But the math is pretty clear: if every reader finds even one thing to disagree with and then posts his rebuttal or elaboration....disaster! (Especially if some people can't trim quotes properly and end up including a big chunk of text.) + Recommendations - Send corrections of _fact_ to me - If you disagree with my opinion, and you think you can change my mind, or cause me to include your opinion as an elaboration or as a dissenting view, then send it. If your point requires long debate or is a deep disagreement, then I doubt I have the time or energy to debate. If you want your views heard, write your own FAQ! - Ultimately, send what you want. But I of course will evaluate comments and apply a reputation-based filter to the traffic. Those who send me concise, well-reasoned corrections or clarifications are likelier to be listened to than those who barrage me with minor clarifications and elaborations. - In short, this is not a group project. The "stone soup FAQ" is not what this is. + More information - Please don't send me e-mail asking for more information on a particular topic--I just can't handle custom research. This FAQ is long enough, and the Glossary at the end contains additional information, so that I cannot expand upon these topics (unless there is a general debate on the list). In other words, don't assume this FAQ is an entry point into a larger data base I will generate. I hate to sound so blunt, but I've seen the requests that come in every time I write a fairly long article. + Tips on feedback - Comments about writing style, of the form "I would have written it _this_ way," are especially unwelcome. + Credit issues - inevitable that omissions or collisions will occur - ideas have many fathers - some ideas have been "in the air" for many years + slogans are especially problematic - "They can have my...."...I credit Barlow with this, but I've heard others use it independently (I think; at least I used it before hearing Barlow used it) - "If crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will have crypto" - "Big Brother Inside" - if something really bothers you, send me a note
Next Page: 1.7 Acknowledgements
Previous Page: 1.5 Comments on Style and Thoroughness
By Tim May, see README
HTML by Jonathan Rochkind