Brent's interactive FAQ server is interesting, but I don't see how it avoids becoming nothing more than what the list archive already is: an unorganized free-for-all of everyone's answer to some big questions, and lots of questions only one person cares about. The thing that useful FAQ lists have going for them is that one person or a small group does the work of organizing a coherent document, selecting the questions and answers that really are most frequent or most useful.
A similar thing could be done for frequent controversies. Collect and organize a good set of them, find eloquent advocates for each side, and include brief summaries of each issue. But to be useful, it has to be organized and edited. That way, if someone wants to discuss one of these, we have a head start. Maybe we could even number the individual points of argument, like Westlaw headnotes, so they could be used to shorten posts. Ideally, people will be inclined to bring up only new arguments to the issues, perhaps even referring to them by number, and giving us the opportunity to update them.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC