DMOZ/ODP Adult is still promoting pro-pedophilia sites

With all of the back-patting and DMOZ-congratulating going on in other threads, I'd liked to remind you that the issue is still far from resolved. DMOZ/ODP Adult is still endorsing and promoting pro-pedophilia sites or "pedophilia neutralization" sites at http://www.dmoz.org/Adult/Society/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/:

DMOZ editors or admins, can you tell us what if anything is being done about this? or how long it will take before something is done about it?

 

Minstrel, I would agree, that before gworlds sudden departure (hopefully a temporary one), DP seemed to have been a place for more profound critique, rather than all these hugs, peace and drunken kisses.

 

Gworld's ban expires on Tuesday April 25.

 

The current guidelines for listing these sites are in the category description http://dmoz.org/Adult/Society/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/desc.html

including ones that are highly controversial, means including pro sites

As far as I know all currently listed sites have been reviewed by a group of editors and the ones not compliant with the guidelines are removed.
And although a number of editors (including me) would never list a lot of these sites ourself the sites are listable according to the guidelines. [as you should know by now there is a difference in DMOZ between what an editor as a person would do and what he can do or can't do as an editor]

If you find a site that violates the new guidelines please let us know (but please give detailed information about where to find the material on the site).

 

Stop wasting my time and yours, pagode.

I don't give a damn about what the guidelines say. If the guidelines allow the inclusion of sites such as the ones I've noted above, then change the guidelines.

The bottom line is that if you or anyone else justifies the inclusion of pro-pedophilia sites on any grounds, you are part of the problem. Now stop trying to justify why they are still there and start looking for ways to get them removed.

If you can't do that, please just refrain from posting at all. You are either part of the problem or you are part of the solution. Take a stand one way or another.

 

May be it helps if you spend some time surfing under
>on boys and boylovers @http://www(.)safet.net/info/adamrprt.html

the footnote there (Meade, A. (1997). Paedophiles set nets in cyberspace to catch boys. The Australian. February 28, 1997. Available May 1997), clickable or not, contains everything one of these creatures is looking for @http://www(.)fpc.net/

 

From the descriptions of some of those sites (and I am not going to look at most of the actual sites based on descriptions) some of them appear to be informational, not supportive, about pedophilia. And a couple appear to be by pedophiles giving information on how others can suppress their urges, which might (depending on the actual content) be useful as long as they are not apologist.

I would be extremely concerned with the continued listing of advocacy sites - Pedaloog, from the description, appears to be one of those and be "material involving children intended to appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles" as would be any site with links to advocacy/affirmative views sites.

I did look at a couple of the listings you mentioned. And I will post the URLs too with a promise that there is no pro-pedophile content if you click on them.

Sex and Kids - from the pages of Z Magazine, the URL is http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/jan94bronski.htm and is an article that doesn't promote pedophilia IMO but does raise questions about the use of children in marketing and film making. Its inclusion is entirely appropriate I think.

Pedophiles and Child Molesters: The Slaughter of Innocence - http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/ likewise is not an advocacy site but an examination of the psychology of criminals.

Both those sites could quite likely be listed in the Society branch, outside Adult.

I believe care is needed here not to blanket every listing as being endorsing and promoting pro-pedophilia sites or "pedophilia neutralization". Some might, others most certainly aren't. Those that are, without question IMO, should be removed and their continued presence remains a disgrace and indefensible. I for one am not going to look at them all, particularly those like Pedaloog that have descriptions that indicate they may be of that nature.

 

That is part of my concern, brizzie. There are others in that category I didn't even list here because they are clearly NOT pro-pedophilia. So why are the pro-pedophilia sites listed in that category mixed in with anti-pedophilia sites? Given the past record of DMOZ Adult, you'll forgive me if I say my suspicion is that Adult editors who want to keep those site listings are doing their best to hide the fact that they haven't been deleted.

 

Actually I would say it is for editors who support retaining those listings to ensure 100% they are compliant and to examine them in minute depth, every single link and word on the site. Under no circumstances should you be asking those deeply opposed to pedophile advocacy sites to start trawling them for detailed evidence - it is not their responsibility, they are not doing the listing and thereby giving the site publicity. Given the nature of the issue it is simply not acceptable that any site dealing with that issue is listed without the most intense scrutiny possible. And they should be regularly monitored to ensure there is no bait and switch too.

Good question. To be honest there is another way of dealing with these sites. There are parts of the Society branch that deal with sex crimes including child sex abuse, and has a substantial number of support groups for victims too. I am not sure of the value of a pedophile category in Adult at all. All educational, informational, and issue-related sites could be listed in Society. What is left? Probably only the advocacy sites.

Please submit only sites dealing primarily with pedophilia, not with child molestation or the sexual abuse of children.

Sorry but what is pedophilia but child molestation and sexual abuse of children.

Pedophilia is the condition of being sexually attracted to minors, particularly prepubescent children. The ODP lists sites dealing with this topic only in the Adult section.

So being attracted to minors is Adult material, committing the crime or discussing the issues of actually doing something about that attraction is Society, non-Adult? Makes no sense to me. Of course ODP lists sites dealing with pedophilia outside the Adult section, in Society.

It does not seem right to have a section on pedophilia that implies it is not child sex abuse / molestation. You're the psychology expert minstrel - in your professional medical opinion, putting aside anti-DMOZ sentiment, what is the difference between pedophilia and child abuse/molestation? Can you distinguish between the two?

 

Pedophilia is a condition where the preferred sexual partner is a child. Not all child molesters are necessarily pedophiles; some commit their crimes for other reasons, such as anger or revenge or "convenience" (the child is an easy target).

I doubt that the distinction makes even the slightest difference to the child victims, however.

 

I would recommend it to both of you to read this fantastic article by Benjamin Jarod. It should be easy to get rid of your "commonly held beliefs" and "explore alternative (positive) aspects" of pedophile relations.

 

So child sexual abuse includes but is not limited to the activities of pedophiles but the activities of pedophiles could not be described as anything but child sex abuse...? It is a sub-set and you can't deal with pedophilia not child abuse? If you see what I am getting at - the pedophilia category description seems to imply (to me) that pedophilia isn't a form of child sex abuse which seems wrong.

No. I'll pass thank you.

 

Which should be the eye-opener, Amen!

 

That is it exactly.

 

Thanks minstrel.

In that case it seems to me that sites legitimately discussing issues of child sex abuse by pedophiles should be listable in Society not Adult. Or in the case of psychological issues relating to the condition, even in the Health branch under Mental Health. The only sites that could not legitimately be listed in either of those branches would be sites advocating the behaviour and we are back to a affirmative views category, that was abolished in the midsts of protests.

 

Yes. Except the sites weren't abolished -- only the category. Obviously some of the sites were moved to obscure that fact.

That is what gworld said would happen all along.

 

Have you actually gone to http://www.fpc.net or are you making assumptions again? I haven't been able to get it to load so I can't see anything you may have seen there. (I haven't been able to get any of those URLs to load, they're hopelessly outdated.)

I think I should point out that this thread is relying on misleading numbers. Of the 42 sites in pedophilia, 22 are in the subcat of Opposing Views. The remaining 20 sites are not all pro-pedophilia but I won't argue the point if that's what you want to call it. Of those, only eight have been re-reviewed and deemed suitable for listing. The other 12 are in need of review to see if they comply with the new guidelines. I was working on reviewing these sites with extreme prejudice, hoping to find any reason to delete as many as possible. The things I saw literally made me sick. One site, submitted to "Opposing Views" was very clearly a hate site against pedophilia. After several hours of careful checking I found that the hate site theme was really a cover for a bunch of sites containing image galleries of the most vile child pornography... so vile a normal person couldn't even imagine it. There were hundreds of sites, and they had links on them as well... I spent a whole day on that site alone, then my findings were posted in the internal dmoz forum, and they were also reported to the proper authorities. Of course by then I was used up... I was crying, shaking and generally a mess so sidjf helped me deal with it and made the initial post for me. (thanks again sid)

As I said in a previous thread, while I was trying to concentrate on forcing myself to keep going and do the right thing, Vulcano was obsessing over the wording of another site's description that he hadn't even fully read. I felt harassed since I'd been very open in the same thread about the real pornography that I was dealing with, and how difficult it was to force myself to go on. Common sense should tell anyone that the priority should lie with going after graphic image galleries of grown men having sex with little children, so that was my focus. Vulcano, on the other hand wanted to argue whether a site should be called a "paper" an "academic paper" a "scholarly paper" an "article" or something else. I didn't have it in me to do both; the real pornography made me sick, it made me cry, I was shaking and couldn't sleep for days. I asked Vulcano to stop but he was relentless so I had to quit, and I haven't been back since.

I don't think gworld saw that scenario, I know I certainly didn't expect it. As an editor gworld can certainly go to that thread and verify the accuracy of all this. I can't work on that category with Vulcano and he knows why. IMO it's very hypocritical of him to drive me away from that project and interfere with the progress we were making and then come here and post complaints about the lack of progress that he caused. Each time he does that I get so mad I want to tell him how I really feel and it's been quite difficult to keep from saying things I'll regret.

Yes, that project should be finished but I'll only go back to it if I know Vulcano will not harass me. I can't handle his harassment and the disgusting content I will be forced to study at the same time. There is nothing stopping Vulcano from applying for permission to edit that category himself. If he doesn't want to do it, that's fine, but I think that the very least he could do is control his urge to carry on relentlessly about non-issues while others are trying to deal with the real problems.

I'm sorry, but I'm weak when it comes to looking at this type of content. I need strength and support to enable me to do that job, not criticism and harassment. Had it not been for that problem, those sites would have been put under a microscope by now and I'm betting many of them would be gone. It's a real shame.

 

Over the last week I did spend several hours there, it is true that one can't get the site to load now. By then, as I already mentioned, everything a pedophile might be looking for was there, the only thing I did not find was explicit pornographic material, but all chats, forums, and pictures of children.

Don't you think it would have been way better, moving these sites to TEST, instead of keeping them exposed.

Again, which makes it almost scandalous, that these sites were not moved to TEST

Repeating these accusations again and again, does not make it more true, could you figure out whether I did in fact harass you or whether you only felt harassed?

I never asked you to work with me on any category, and I am missing the point that would have hindered you working there, e.g. me not even knowing about it.

It is not that you reserve the right to know what seem to be non-issues and where the real problems are, is it?

 

First, I'm not going to get into whatever happened between annie and vulcano since I wasn't there and have no idea what was said or done or not said or done. Second, annie, I'm personally not suggesting that you have to be the one to clean up that particular cesspool - surely there are other editors who can do it.

Third, regarding this:

See brizzie's posts and my posts above, annie. This doesn't make it better -this makes it worse. There are sites in there that shouldn't exist at all but instead of being listed in a category where they are in plain sight they are now hiding among some legitimate sites that probably shouldn't even be in the Adult section. That isn't clean-up. That's camouflage. And it's hard for me to believe it's not intentional (and I don't mean by you, annie, but by those who have an interest in retaining those sites in the index).

I totally agree with vulcano here: Dump the sites - ALL the sites - into "test" until they have been re-reviewed. That was done at the start of this mess until some meta or admin decided to reverse the process for reasons that have never been explained.

 

Let's look at what is really going on here. The ODP is a bunch of volunteers. That means that people do what they feel like doing. If they ignore guidelines, then sooner or later someone will notice and they could find themselves out of the door. But that's all. They can't be forced to do things they don't want to do.

That explains why Adult is shrinking and why a lot of needed improvements are not getting made there. Very few editors want to work there. That includes metas. Who can blame them? Can we force volunteers to edit Adult sites? No. Can we force them to review stuff in the pedophilia category? No.

Fortunately we have a few editors so determined to clean up this category that they were willing to edit in Adult, willing to look at stuff that made them sick. I have the greatest admiration for them, because I couldn't do it. I think Annie is a heroine.