Biased FAQ

After I had written the don't use UCM FAQ answer, I got the following reply:

if your ambition is to add an entry to the ClearCase FAQ the bare minimum I'd expect would be to provide unbiased information.

This is obviously an opinion, with which I disagree, and I'll try here to explain why. One other reply I got was:

is this a joke?

I believe I can infer from it that my opinion was not expected. That there exists some people who do not even know that an important mass of ClearCase users do not use UCM, and will never, for reasons which relate to mine. I believe thus that the information I provided, that such an opinion exists, which cannot be easily dismissed by arguments or experiences based on other biases, is useful, and thus validated as a FAQ.

Indeed, the purpose of a FAQ is not to be unbiased, but first to be useful, to give an answer to a frequently asked question. One may hope that the answer would satisfy the questioner, but first its only existence, as part of a FAQ, is useful in acknowledging the question, and its frequency. That the question is valid (as being frequently made) does not prove there exists (yet) a valid answer, nor that there might even be one.

The requirement of unbiased information —which resembles the (infamous) neutral point of view of Wikipedia, which is not a balanced presentation of diverging opinions, but some kind of middle ground which would be universally agreed upon— is abusive. What if I don't believe in the existence of any unbiased information? Should I then refrain from stating my opinion? But then, are there some opinions which are admissible (the ones believing to be universal truths), and others (more humble ones, knowing that they are biased), which would not be? This would clearly be revolting (the case of Wikipedia...)

The conclusion I draw, and offer here, is that we must prepare to manage disagreements and accept that there is no universal reality in software.

-- MarcGirod - 11 Nov 2007