Help me fix the FAQ

I think we all agree that the FAQ as it exists now is virtually useless.  While in some aspects it adequately outlines the specifics of the theory, many of the answers are outdated, many of the questions are unnecessary (Why is the space shuttle runway curved?  Really, that's a frequently asked question?), and parts of it look like it was written by a twelve-year-old.

I know there was a lot of interest in improving the FAQ a while back, and while it seems to have waned I'm sure many members would like to have something clear, user-friendly, and accurate to point to when a frequently asked question is asked.

My idea is to completely overhaul the whole thing.  First of all I want to change the format so that all the questions are lined up as a sort of table of contents, with each question being a link to its answer, which will be a post further down in the thread.  It's something I've seen on other websites and it looks a lot better than what we have.  Can we really blame a noob for overlooking an answer when it takes so much work to find a question in the first place?

With that in mind, I've come up with an organized list of questions that I feel should be in the FAQ:

General
1) Is this site a joke?
2) Are you affiliated with Alaska.net?
3) How did Flat Earth Theory originate?
4) Why do you believe the Earth is flat?
5) Is FET based on religious belief?
6) What evidence do you have that the Earth is flat?
7) What is zeteticism?
What should I do before starting a thread?
9) Is there a flat Earth model based on a combination of religion and science?

Physics of the Earth and the Celestial Bodies
1) Do you believe in gravity?  How do you explain that the Earth, if a disk, hasn’t crumbled up into the shape of a sphere?
2) Why does g vary with altitude?
3) Why do the celestial bodies exert a gravitational pull but the Earth does not?
4) How big are the sun, moon, planets, and stars?  Are they flat too?  What are they made of?
5) Why is the Earth different from the other planets?
6) How do you explain the retrograde motion of the planets?
7) How do you explain lunar eclipses?
How do you explain moonlight?  How do you explain the moon’s phases?
9) How do you explain the movement of the stars?  Why are the stars seen in the northern hemisphere different from those in the southern hemisphere?
10) How do you explain meteoroids, meteors, and meteorites?
11) What causes sunrises and sunsets?
12) How do you explain satellites?
13) If the Earth is accelerating why isn’t it traveling faster than the speed of light?  Why does a feather fall slower than a bowling ball?
14) How do compasses work?  Do you believe the Earth has a magnetic field?
15) If the Earth is a disk, what would happen if you jumped off the edge?
16) What causes the seasons?
17) What causes the tides?
18) What causes the Coriolis Effect?

Form, Magnitude, and Geography of the Earth
1) What are the circumference and diameter of the Earth?
2) Do you have a map?
3) Exactly what shape is the Earth?
4) Why doesn’t water run off the Earth?  What is the Ice Wall?
5) Why isn’t the atmosphere diffused into space?
6) Why are the Arctic and Antarctic regions colder than the equator?
Why do we have time zones?
9) How is circumnavigation possible?
10) How do you explain that flight times in the southern hemisphere take less time than predicted by the Flat Earth model?
11) If you keep going directly south will you eventually fall off the edge?
12) How do you explain continental drift?  Do you believe in plate tectonics?

Space Exploration and Government
1) NASA and other world space agencies have pictures of the Earth from space, and in those pictures the Earth is clearly a globe; in this day and age, hasn't it been proven beyond any doubt that the Earth is round?
2) How did NASA create such realistic images with the technology available in the 1960s?
3) What is the Conspiracy?  Do all FEers believe in it?
4) What is the Conspiracy’s motive?
5) How are the world’s governments organized to carry out such a conspiracy?
6) How could such a conspiracy be carried out so successfully?
7) Why hasn’t this site been shut down by the government?
Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?

Mind you, this isn't written in stone, but I feel I've covered all the bases.  If anybody has any suggestions for how the list could be improved, let me know what you think.

I basically want to structure the answers so that they give, as applicable, first the answer according to Rowbotham's model, then the generally accepted answer according to the Cambridge (ie Standard) Model, and finally any alternative theories taken seriously by the FE believers.

This is an open call for help.  I'm perfectly willing to take this on entirely by myself but I fear it would take a lot of time.  If anyone's interested in helping out by providing some answers, let me know.

Good work roundy....It seems like noobs always ask about ships on the horizon,

You might as well just link them to the Wiki. It's not like angry noobs will read either of those.

The revised FAQ should also be linked on the front page of this site on the left column.

the idea of having the link to send you down the page is a great idea, that way you can easily find something you are looking for. not everybody is an 'angry noob' as that seems to be the new catchphrase round here. people do read the FAQ first and its important you get one that the society agrees on more or less. that to me will be the hardest part as alot of the theroy is not proven i would just stick to know facts or as close to as you can get. this is the main problem with the FAQ though not the layout. i dont think it will ever be suitable as there is no common ground the FES can work on

You might as well just link them to the Wiki. It's not like angry noobs will read either of those.

Well, this "angry" noob read your FAQ front-to-back and it was less than useless.

I would love to see a FAQ as proposed and am looking forward to physics #9 and #18. What I would also like is at least some indication of the methods used to determine numbers like the 3,000 miles for the altitude of the Sun. If no explanation is given of how your observations were made they cannot be verified personally by others.

Which is what you guys are all about, if I'm not mistaken.

Thinking a bit about it, why not give a concise answer in the FAQ and provide a link to the Wiki for a thorough explanation?

not everybody is an 'angry noob' as that seems to be the new catchphrase round here.

The NEW catchphrase?  Ohhhh that is too funny.  You have been here sooooo long you know what catch phrases are new and which aren't.  Have your finger on the pulse of all that is FES do ya?  Wow.  The cajones on this one. 

Try lurking moar noob.  Then read the FAQ. 

Also, I miss AR. 


Also also.....Good job Roundy.  Looks great and I can't think of any others that you might have missed.  'Cept for maybe the catchphrases we use around here I guess.  Sheesh. 

1) Is this site a joke?

No, we are completely serious.

2) Are you affiliated with alaska.net?

Alaska.net is a parody site. Essentially, we are to alaska.net as CNN.com (or your favorite news site) is to theonion.com.

3) How did the Flat Earth Theory originate?

FET has been around for centuries, but in its most recent incarnation it began with the Flat Earth Society in the 1800s. This was was Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham performed the Bedford Level Experiment, proving once and for all the shape of the Earth.

4) Why do you believe the Earth is flat?

The are many reasons for our belief, but for the most part it comes down to believing our eyes. The Earth looks flat, so it most likely is unless evidence can be provided otherwise. And since the bulk of the evidence is for a flat Earth, this is what we believe.

5) Is FET based on religious beliefs?

Quite simply, no. You'll find that many of us are actually atheistic or agnostic.

6) What evidence do you have that the Earth is flat?

Our most often quoted evidences are the Bedford Level Experiment, performed by Dr. Samuel B. Rowbotham and many others (including board members Daniel and Tom Bishop) and the simple fact that it looks flat. Some less quoted reasons are that ships beyond the horizon can be brought back into focus with a telescope and that one should be able to see curvature on plane rides but cannot.

7. What is zeteticism?

Zeteticism is an alternative to the Scientific Method. It is much like the Scientific Method, except that one does not hypothesize to avoid bias. Neozeteticism refers to a mix of the two that occurs when Flat Earthers are forced to hypothesize about the physics of the flat Earth due to lack of funding for experiments.

8) What should I do before starting a thread?

You should use the Search function to see if it exists yet (it most likely will) and check the FAQ and Wiki for an answer. This requires slightly more effort, but will result in a much better understanding of the theory and much more respect from the regulars.

9) Is there a flat Earth model based on the combination of religion and science?

Yes, but it is not used by us.

Mostly simply, that is not true. There are theists here, though you deplore us.

Mostly simply, that is not true. There are theists here, though you deplore us.

There's being a theist and there's being a creationist. Are you both?

Quote from: Ski on October 10, 2011, 08:58:04 AM

Mostly simply, that is not true. There are theists here, though you deplore us.

There's being a theist and there's being a creationist. Are you both?

What's wrong with being a creationist?  Some evolutionists believe a god or even the God started it all.

Mostly simply, that is not true. There are theists here, though you deplore us.

What isn't true? I said that our arguments are not based on religion and, as proof, cited the fact that many of the members here aren't even religious. I didn't imply that there aren't any religious people here.

Why bother with this at all? Why not use the wiki to answer all these questions, and make a section of the wiki the new FAQ. This way they can read the FAQ and then explore in depth from the same source. Otherwise it is yet another source to point people at. Read ENaG, Read the FAQ, Read the wiki. We should try to limit all these sources where we can. I don't think the FAQ and wiki should be separate. You should just link a sticky into the wiki. Then they know where it is.

Either that or put all the answers in the wiki and just leave the questions as a list. Then instead of a crap one line answer they can get a full explanation.

Example
How can you circumnavigate the earth?
What is the ice-wall?

If we are constructive with the wiki it will read like a news report. First line is the answer in a nutshell. Then more info, then more info etc so people get the gist quickly but can read more into it if they find it interesting. Hopefully after seeing a few questions they will refer to the wiki for infrequently asked questions too.

Why bother with this at all? Why not use the wiki to answer all these questions, and make a section of the wiki the new FAQ. This way they can read the FAQ and then explore in depth from the same source. Otherwise it is yet another source to point people at. Read ENaG, Read the FAQ, Read the wiki. We should try to limit all these sources where we can. I don't think the FAQ and wiki should be separate. You should just link a sticky into the wiki. Then they know where it is.

Either that or put all the answers in the wiki and just leave the questions as a list. Then instead of a crap one line answer they can get a full explanation.

For some of the questions, a one sentence answer works best. For example, 'are you guys serious?'

Having lots of material all repeating itself is not a good idea and the last FAQ (also written by Roundy I might add) was a complete abortion. Why would we do the same thing again with different questions?

Are we serious? Well you could answer that with 'Yes' but what is the point? What answer would they expect us to say? It would be better to link to the society's history or news reports about it to show its credentials. I.E. Link to a wiki page.

Quote from: squevil on October 10, 2011, 04:09:25 AM

not everybody is an 'angry noob' as that seems to be the new catchphrase round here.

The NEW catchphrase?  Ohhhh that is too funny.  You have been here sooooo long you know what catch phrases are new and which aren't.  Have your finger on the pulse of all that is FES do ya?  Wow.  The cajones on this one. 

Try lurking moar noob.  Then read the FAQ. 

Also, I miss AR. 


Also also.....Good job Roundy.  Looks great and I can't think of any others that you might have missed.  'Cept for maybe the catchphrases we use around here I guess.  Sheesh. 

no need to be so hostile i was only giving my opinion and constructive ideas. your post is ignorant and offensive.
i have only seen 'angry noob' thrown round for the last few weeks so frequently.
"Try lurking moar noob.  Then read the FAQ." never been told that before, odly becuase i DID before i even made a comment when i joined, thats why i felt like posting in response to the FAQ as it helped me understand what the forum was about

why would you guys be associated with http://alaska.net/?

thinking about moving to Alaska

Having lots of material all repeating itself is not a good idea and the last FAQ (also written by Roundy I might add) was a complete abortion.

I did not write the last FAQ.  All I did was improve on the Conspiracy section (and believe me, it's a vast improvement on what was there before).  To see a FES FAQ I actually did write see the one on NFES.  Of course that one is practically a skeleton compared to what I plan to do with this one.  And viewpoints have shifted.

You might as well just link them to the Wiki. It's not like angry noobs will read either of those.

Obviously it's not angry noobs that either of us are targeting here.  For them we should just bring back Angry Ranting.

Why bother with this at all? Why not use the wiki to answer all these questions, and make a section of the wiki the new FAQ.

Honestly, I just can't see this forum without an FAQ. 

Also, to me, an FAQ and a wiki perform two fundamentally different roles.  The FAQ is a starting point, designed for people brand-new to the site, while a wiki, with its in-depth analysis of all aspects of its subject, is more advanced, designed more for people who have at least some grasp on the subject.  And while a wiki is editable by an entire community, I don't think the same thing would be appropriate for an FAQ.

I would have no problem including the FAQ in the wiki, as long as its content was locked, but I see no reason why it shouldn't also be in the forum itself.  One way or another I do think it would be ideal if there was synergy between the two; when both are completed to everybody's satisfaction, there should be links from the FAQ to the wiki whenever it's applicable, sort of like what OU812 suggested.  And obviously there will be a link to the wiki itself in the FAQ.

And to be clear I certainly don't mean to demean or trivialize the importance of the work PizzaPlanet, Thork, and others are doing with the wiki right now by proposing this.  The wiki is broken and it's hurting this site; I think the same thing can be said about the FAQ.  My hope is that a user-friendly, concisely presented and professionally written FAQ will inspire more people to actually post rather than just reading a few threads and then leaving (call me a dreamer).  I think a good wiki is a benefit to the site; I think a good FAQ is too.

Then instead of a crap one line answer they can get a full explanation.

I do not intend these to be "crap one line answers"; neither do I intend them to be as thorough as the wiki.  It's a starting point.  But since each answer will have its own post, each answer can be as short or as long as it needs to be to get the point across.

Are we serious? Well you could answer that with 'Yes' but what is the point? What answer would they expect us to say?

It is a frequently asked question.  But if enough people disagree with its being appropriate I will happily take it out.

The revised FAQ should also be linked on the front page of this site on the left column.

No argument here.

Good work roundy....It seems like noobs always ask about ships on the horizon,

Yes, I agree, that's a question that should be included.

Tausami: To be honest, I'm looking for a little more meat than what you provided.  Traditional FET, for example, is heavily inspired by religion, and whether or not that fact is still true now ( it is, for some) I think out of respect it should be pointed out in the question regarding religion.

Also, just so you know, the question about a model based on science and religion is basically an excuse to link to levee's alternative FAQ, which is genuinely respected, if not necessarily agreed with, by many of his peers.  The link is staying.

why would you guys be associated with http://alaska.net/?

thinking about moving to Alaska

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

As Tausami pointed out, it's a parody site.

Quote from: Ski on October 10, 2011, 08:58:04 AM

Mostly simply, that is not true. There are theists here, though you deplore us.

There's being a theist and there's being a creationist. Are you both?

I don't believe I know any theists that don't believe in a creation of some sort. Are you asking if I believe the world is 5772 years old?