Forum Moderators: open
Anyway, I just find this stuff fascinating and wanted to share.;)
He can't really be kicked out of his own creation can he?
He most certainly can. ODP is a social organization. If someone is going to disagree with the consensus and continue to squabble with a group decision, he is excluding himself from society. In a way, ODP doesn't "kick out" anyone; they kick themselves out by turning away from the community.
LizardGroupie, I beg to differ. A hint of a disagreement with a certain editor can get you booted out. Even after you have given up on making a point. Even when this argument is about a special case and the finer points of editing.Removals are not done lightly and editors are not booted out for disagreeing in a thread with another editor, senior or otherwise. Period.
Removals are not done lightly and editors are not booted out for disagreeing in a thread with another editor, senior or otherwise. Period.
You have GOT to be kidding. I have been following the ODP saga for years, both inside and out, and I can say without any doubt at all that your statement is ... well, let's just say "questionable"...
your statement is ... well, let's just say "questionable"It's actually 100% accurate.
Question it all you like, but the procedures - with all their checks, balances and requirements for hard evidence - are laid down and followed to the letter. The meta editors, admins and staff know this and, by and large, other editors without access to the process have confidence in their leaders.
Any contrary claims from removed editors can be safely ignored.
Nobody weeps when an abuser is expelled - except the abuser of course.
Jim Noble
meta
The whole idea of "volunteers" directing traffic worth billions is corrupt .
The whole idea of "volunteers" directing traffic worth billions is corrupt.
Wouldn't say having volunteers in a powerful organisation is corrupt per se; what is corrupt is when editors ensure their own sites have multiple listings and their rivals are booted out of the directory.
what is corrupt is when editors ensure their own sites have multiple listings and their rivals are booted out of the directory
That's not to say that there aren't editors with their own personal agendas, but for the most part those people are usually dealt with pretty swiftly - and if you really do have evidence that someone is abusing their privileges, please do report it. We can't fix it if we don't know about it.
That obviously would be a motivating factor for me to become an editor, but certainly not the only factor. I'm extremely familiar with the category I'd like to be listed in, and could separate the "chafe from the wheat."
You see, it will probably take a meta editor more time to review your editor application than it would for that editor to review at least several sites; so if you add less sites as an editor than the meta could have done in the time it took to review your application then the directory has lost rather than gained.
The categories suitable for my sites no longer have editors.
I've attemped to volunteer to edit categories, but I never receive a response.
My (small) experience of posting a query on resource zone usually results in a smug retort from some smarmy Dmozling.
That's my Dmoz experience in the last couple of years.
>>I've attemped to volunteer to edit categories, but I never receive a response.
When submitting your application you should have received a confirmation message that you must reply to before your application is accepted for review. If you did not reply to this message you're appplication will never be seen.
is it acceptable practice to become an editor and include your own site in your particular category?
Just what I need, though: another volunteer position. :=)
This is almost becoming a cliché. If there is so much corruption happening, why are people not reporting it?
This is almost becoming a cliché. If there is so much corruption happening, why are people not reporting it?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
From what I have observed, an "open" project has a very secretive culture. While it may very well be fair, it gives the appearance of being arbitrary and inconsistent - whether, in fact, it is or is not.
Why would people report abuse to a closed, highly structured society when that could result in having their sites banned?
DMOZ SEEMS to be very self-protective and SEEMS to discourage the kind of critical discourse that MIGHT improve its credibility.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
From what I have observed, an "open" project has a very secretive culture
DMOZ SEEMS to be very self-protective and SEEMS to discourage the kind of critical discourse that MIGHT improve its credibility.
First of all, the correct term is libel - not slander which applies to the spoken word. I never wrote that there was corruption. What I DID opine is that the argument that "If there is so much corruption happening, why are people not reporting it?" is rhetoric expaining a basic falacy of logic that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Moreover, I wasn't aware that DMOZ published statistics concerning the number of complaints and their ultimate resolution.
>>How many abuse reports have you filed? <<
Zero. The question is irrelevant to my opinion. It's simply more argumentum ad hominem.
>>You have a very serious misunderstanding of what the 'open' in Open Directory Project means<<
My original statement was "From what I have observed, an "open" project has a very secretive culture." Note the quotes around the word open suggesting an expression of irony not fact. But just for you, I'll restate:
"From what I have observed, DMOZ has a very secretive culture."
Rebutting the opinion is accomplished through constructive argument in contrast to the ad hominem approach. I also went on to write ". . . while it may very well be fair, it gives the appearance of being arbitrary and inconsistent - whether, in fact, it is or is not."
You didn't quote that portion. However, it seems clear that I was not being accusatory in any fashion. Of course, that is a greater challenge for you to respond to and the phrase completely refutes your nonsense about attacks and "slander."
>>Get your facts right first. Don't characterize DMOZ as something that its not and then attack that characteization. <<
What I wrote was "DMOZ SEEMS to be very self-protective and SEEMS to discourage the kind of critical discourse that MIGHT improve its credibility."
Your answer does nothing to refute what I expressed as perception. I never expressed any issue of fact, let alone statements that could be challenged as inaccurate. Nice try though.
Oh and by the way, I have no economic dog in this fight. I have three sites; Our corporate site is a closed (password protected) client portal except for avocational Linux materials unrelated to our quality management consulting practice. The second is a pro bono effort and the third is a parked domain. I don't give a rodent's derriere if any of them are ever listed in ODP. It's unnecessary.
