Having something that isn't kept up to date is arguably worse than nothing -- if there's nothing there, at least people can look at the long list of things left to do and assume that it's coming some day. With something that's out of date, the question can be asked: "if this isn't being kept up, how can I assume the software itself is being kept up?" -- also, there really needs to be something of higher quality than this (I posted in this thread earlier about this) so the fact that this exists begs the question of whether or not that will ever exist.
Despite the fact that this FAQ is labeled as unofficial, it's still being linked to from the software itself, so it is official in at least some capacity. I feel like this middle ground is the worst possible thing in terms of the current state of the documentation: either there needs to be just a placeholder that says more is coming soon, or maybe more people should be given the ability to update the FAQ so that it's less likely to lag behind.
I realize I have sort of a minority opinion on this, but my professional opinion is that software is only as good as its documentation; meaning that unless there is a good-looking, useful FAQ that's kept up-to-date with each release, the software really doesn't hold up to anything. And I also feel pretty strongly that non-technical people should have a huge hand in writing this documentation.