I read the couple you've posted so far -- I don't know if Zulg is planning to unqueue them or do something else, so I'm not touching them for now.

I swear I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or rag on you specifically; you're just the first person to post something and probably this would come up with whoever did.

The thing that gives me pause is this: a lot of it's just wrong. Not "our opinions differ on how important X is" (although there's some of that too) but more like, you say something works a certain way, or a certain stat or skill is relevant to a situation, and I know for 100% sure that it doesn't/isn't.

I tend to think that trying to edit/correct someone's FAQ would result in me putting in more time/frustration/arguing than just writing my own, which I also generally don't want to do.

So the question I'd put to everyone is:

1) Do you see a good solution to this problem, and/or

2) Does it add value for us to post FAQs that aren't verified correct with a disclaimer (since, after all, even if a FAQ is let's say 25% wrong, there's still 75% of potentially useful information there), or do you think that does more harm than good in that we seem to endorse something that may be wrong?