Don’t get me wrong in the beginning of reading this. I really mean the label and not the content of FAQ. The content is very useful if its’ made the right way (as here on ux.se), but there are plenty of examples where it isn’t. The real question concerns the label which is a convention I’d like to challenge.

History

In 1647 Matthew Hopkins wrote The Discovery of Witches which were introduced as "Certain Queries answered" and had the form of a list of Question and Answer, even if the topic is inappropriate by today’s standards. The label FAQ origins from the early 1980s mailing lists where NASA hoped to get new users read the old mail conversations, which were not the case. Instead the same questions were answered again and again and the need for FAQ was born. The acronym FAQ was invented by Eugene Miya and FAQ were later used in mail on a weekly basis at first and later on as a daily mail.


  Today FAQ is more frequently used to refer to the list, and a text consisting of questions and their answers is often called an FAQ regardless of whether the questions are actually frequently asked, if they are asked at all.[1]


Problem

Acronyms are generally bad, since it excludes those who do not know the meaning. They either have to search for the acronym, if they are interested, or just ignore it. If a label is ignored, there is not much use of it and an entire section of valid content is lost by bad labeling. However, it is a very strong web convention which might lead to confusion over time for experienced users.
Also the original meaning have changed (see quote), which also implies that the label would be wrong.

Question

Isn’t the FAQ label obsolete by now? and if so How do we relabel it to suit both experienced and new users?



Edit: I’d really like to know why we can or cannot change the label FAQ. Current answer does not meet that criterion.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAQ


Question: Do parallel realities take precedence over time travel in the Star Trek Universe?
Answer: I'm not sure if this is actually a parallel reality or a new timeline. The difference between the two I must admit goes over my head right now. However there is two main differences in the Pine Line (I'm coining that phrase) one events have been changed drastically; technology is more advanced and with the destruction of Vulcan certain elements of stories will not play out the same. That being said you are right the Entity that speaks whale is most likely sure to return which brings me to the second point. Old Spock is there and knows all about this.

I can't find a date for the whales extinction but if they are still around I'm sure he will make a priority of saving them. If they are not he knows advanced technology and will be able to give ample warning to the Pine Line to prepare and maybe even bring back the whales from the past. After all the Earth was under attack last time which is why the Shatner Line was saved by the Enterprise crew who were on exile on the planet Vulcan which is no more.

One of the advantages of the Pine Line is that it actually gets to retell the story without dismissing the original fan loved series or movies. However many things are changed and Nimoy Spock can be sort of a McGuffin used to fix or explain away serious consistences such as what will happen when the whales come.