I don't know about the main Trilogy, but in Stack Exchange 2.0, diamonds can edit the FAQ's top section to insert extra wordings and stuff.

Apparently, it consumes a post. I learned this because apparently the FAQ on Programmers is Post #1462. I don't have an account there, so it's fully visible. I can see arguments in both directions; restriction is good since only diamonds and above can modify it, but the FAQ is viewable by everyone so it's not exactly a secret thing that needs to be obscured.

If the intent is not to make it public, could you not list it right in the activity summary of our profiles?

  • +1 I think this should be made private. There's no need for everyone to see the revision history.
    – Jon Seigel
    Oct 1, 2010 at 17:18

1 Answer 1


restriction is good since only diamonds and above can modify it

I don't see that argument at all. The point of a revision history is transparency - if something changes, you can find out what, when, who changed it, and perhaps even why they changed it. That it also allows some users to edit or rollback is useful, but you hardly need a full-blown revision history for that. New users on SO can view the revision history of any post right off the bat, even though they don't and may never have the ability to actually edit these posts.

As for why a revision history for the FAQs might be useful... The SO FAQ has changed in a few crucial areas in the past year. The SU FAQ has changed dramatically since its inception. Occasionally it's useful to look back at previous revisions in order to better understand the evolution of these sites over time.

I think a link to the revision history should be provided at the bottom of each FAQ.

  • While I think a better place is a good idea, I'm not so keen on putting it at the bottom; the only part the revision history tracks is the editable part which stops at the "Jeopardy" statement. Placing it at the bottom feels like it should apply to the whole FAQ (which entails anywhere between opening up all the otherwise immutable sections to modification, or using a completely separate system than hijacking posttype-wiki), while placing it immediately after that section breaks up the flow of the page, especially since it appears just before a paragraph instead of a heading.
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Oct 1, 2010 at 18:48
  • As I'm neutral, I don't particularly mind how this ends up as long as it's not weird. But as far as the "hide it" side, the basic logic is that it's noise to the average user. I see the FAQ argued as being on the same basis as the System Message; it's publicly viewable and important, but the history of it is primarily an administrative concern. So while System Message logs are completely available to diamonds, they are unavailable to other users simply because they are unnecessary to their daily activity. It's the kind of thing you could just ask the diamonds about if you were concerned.
    – Grace Note StaffMod
    Oct 1, 2010 at 18:56
  • 2
    @Grace: system messages are transient. Presumably, they go away once they no longer apply. The FAQ is not transient. Also, "What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
    – Shog9
    Oct 1, 2010 at 19:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .