Receptional_Andy - 8:15 am on Apr 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Whew, pretty heated discussion here. I don't want to go over old ground, but there are a few things I would like to add.

>>>I don't think the DMOZ was originally put together so that a small group of Editors could decide which sites they liked and point the rest of the Internet population in the direction of those sites.

I interpret this (and the social contract) differently to you rfgdxm1. The very fact that it is called a 'social contract' implies to me that editors have a responsibility to "Give Back to the Web Community". This in turn suggests that editors to one extent or another, should evaluate sites in so far as they will benefit the community. You can't do this if you base your editorial decisions entirely on personal opinion. Obviously the ODP trys to get around this by aiming for a breadth of editors, but this will not work if editors allow personal bias to influence their decisions. Lets say I edit a literature cat. What books you like depends greatly on personal taste. Let's say there are some authors I cannot stand and I see no value in their works (although other memebers of the community would disagree). From your comments above rfgdxm1 would I be justified in refusing any submissions related to authors I don't 'like' because I personally don't like them and don't feel they have value?

Perhaps i'm reading too much into what you said, but I place different emphasis on the quote above:

>>a small group of Editors could decide which sites they liked

From my reading of the ODP guidelines and contract, this is certainly not the aim of dmoz. Conversely, it is for as large a group of editors as possible to decide whch sites they think will be valuable to visitors, whether they personally 'like' them or not.