And? So even if you're correct and it's only Adult that has a problem, that makes it okay? Edit: Well, well, well... we have the infamous kctipton perusing this thread now... I can't wait.
(One obsessed person regularly dropping my editor nickname in the forums doesn't make me infamous, does it?) Uroboros, you got removed in early 2005. Why all the hate now, 18 months later? If you really have my emails, then you know where to reach me. I look forward to an e-card at Christmas.
No. What makes you infamous is your lengthy history of vitriolic rants at the Resourceless Zone and various other forums over the years. My first exposure to your sunny personality was a few years back at WPW. As far as I can see, nothing has changed...
Unlike gworld I did raise the subject of the appearance of corruption in Adult internally, and got an official warning for my trouble. No, the listing policies employed in Adult were not right but they were known about by AOL staff and tolerated officially, and openly not secretly. To me, and probably 95% of editors, a meta editor listing what, 40-odd, of her own porn galleries, and only being able to do so because policies, largely unwritten and intepreted by the branch leader, who happened to be the same person, had been developed to allow that to happen, is completely wrong. Anyone daring to question is was immediately accused of having no idea about the Internet porn industry and hounded into submission, adding to the extremely poor perception of the branch. Had it been done deceptively, secretly, then it would be clear corruption. But it was done openly and was tolerated by the owners and is therefore not corrupt - they are the ultimate arbiters of whether something is allowed or not. My view is either it is wrong and the sites are removed, or the dispensation should be documented in guidelines. Because it is a dispensation to list multiple related sites in the same or closely located categories. And the sort of action that in other branches would see the editor ejected without a second thought. And... the question was what is DMOZ, really, and it isn't Adult branch, which is just 1 in 200 DMOZ listings.
We've had this discussion previously, brizzie. If my lungs are rotting with cancer, I am diseased. I cannot say I am healthy - it is only a small part of my body which is ill.
We're not talking about corruption being a cancer within DMOZ. Corruption is not the cause of the decline nor is it likely to kill the project. There are far higher priority issues to deal with. If you want to continue on the Adult theme then I would say encouraging minors to become editors without making the existence of Adult very clear at the point of recruitment, and having no systems in place to prevent minors gaining full editing rights in Adult, is a far more serious concern.
I don't send e-cards to anybody, you're the last person on earth for whom I'd make an exception. I do know where to reach you, but I don't care to. You should know, however, that I don't "hate" you. It's all water under the bridge. I bring you up because your behavior illustrates with great clarity what is wrong with the ODP. Many webmasters have sat on your cactus in various forums and Resource-Zone, where they've seen hints of your peerless talent for shoot-from-the-hip condescension. It's a short stretch between what they've seen of your public persona, to my descriptions of how you behave with fellow editors. It's as if you embody all that which has brought about the irreversible decline of the Directory: the hush and secrecy, the runaway paranoia, the self-desctructive witch-hunting, the oozing condescension at RZ, the overly-efficient and rude editor rejection process, the view that webmasters are nothing but Ebola-carrying vermin, the suspicion of editors that know anything about their chosen categories, etc. Such things that lead to increasing editor attrition, Directory obsolescence, and Google's colossal downgrade of Directory influence in its algo. Same goes for the meta-editor selection process. Some metas are clearly unhinged, and I won't give names, haha. They are promoted, demoted, promoted, demoted, then they quit, then they come back... go figure what can cause such whirlwinds and fluxes. On another topic, I do agree with brizzie that Adult is a shameful canker and should be flushed down to sewer where it belongs. It serves no one (like all the other categories, actually). The corruption within and the unacceptable nature of some of the sites listed truly are a shame.
Are you claiming the Time Warner directors like Richard Parsons, James Barksdale, Stephen Bollenbach,..... are aware that DMOZ list sites that break US federal law and encourages the involvement of minors in Porn? What is the profit for AOL as public corporation to be involved in underground porn such as rape and bestiality? Be realistic, do you really think that people like Parsons, Barksdale,... that make millions in salary, really need couple of thousand in affiliate commission from underground porn sites? I think it is clear for anyone with couple of brain cells that AOL management and AOL corporation will not get involved in such businesses. I have no doubt that you got an official warning in DMOZ for your protest but that only proves that abuse and corruption are systematic and Admins, Metas and possibly some staff are involved and nothing about the seal of approval by AOL for such actions.
Yep. How could brizzie be "warned," when he was so clearly in the right, and the corruption stared them in the face. I find this disturbing.
I didn't claim that so I'm not claiming that. First I am talking about the listing of porn galleries according to Adult policies, this is the corruption you are talking about isn't it. If you are alleging illegality on the part of DMOZ and its editors then take it to the authorities. Second, as with any large corporate managers are delegated responsibility for business units, and the managers of the DMOZ business unit were certainly aware of the porn gallery listing policies. Since I didn't say I thought... I don't think... but carry on, twist the night away gworld. Your telepathic mindreading abilities have unfortunately failed you again. Stick to making your own points instead of assigning words and thoughts to others. It makes discussion less irritating and more interesting. It was my warning and I didn't view it as proof of anything other than one Admin who didn't read properly what I had written. And proof of complete misjudgement since she thought it would be a great way to shut me up. You have still avoided those two questions from earlier haven't you. No answer or are you playing for more time to construct a fantasy. Why has no editall or meta, amongst the thousands who have passed through and including those removed who have nothing to lose, ever come forward and confirmed your allegations. Not a single one. Not a single hint. Why did an Admin resign over Topix on principle when according to you they were presiding over mass systematic corruption. Clearly he had principles, so why would he have been appointed if you were right, why wouldn't he have resigned over systematic corruption.
I was warned for making an accusation of abuse against another editor. What I said was that "a" meta had listed two sites from the same owner in the same category, which is true, and that was an indicator of abuse according to documentation on spotting abuse, or a sign of sloppy editing. What I did not realise was that there was only one meta in Adult so it was deemed I had identified the meta concerned. Why it wasn't abuse was because there were somewhat unwritten listing policies in Adult that allowed such things. Either those policies are officially documented in guidelines, or the policy is ruled incorrect and the listings listed under it are removed. I was careful to ensure that I did not allege abuse but stated that the policies gave every appearance of abuse. I was threatened with removal of my editall privileges if I repeated the offence but since 30 seconds before receiving the warning I had removed my own editall privileges it was a bit of a hollow threat. A corrupt Admin would have said nothing and just let me resign and do what every editall and meta who has resigned previously has done - fade away. Not give me a warning with a high risk of provoking me. Another Admin contacted me and asked for the details so she could investigate and indicated the warning had not been with her consent. If there was a high level conspiracy then I would not have got that communication.
I think it was clear that your justification for any kind of abuse and corruption is AOL seal of approval, so it is just natural to ask you, what kind of benefit do you imagine that AOL gets from hundreds of deep links to illegal sites such as sites that involve minors, rape and bestiality? Are you claiming that AOL supports such actions for the sake of humanity, the same way that DMOZ "senior" editors list these sites and protect it? Do you have any written document or any documents in DMOZ that proves AOL's seal of approval or just some Admin or Meta told you so? I haven't seen any such document and your posting that Admins and Metas approve such actions only proves my argument that such abuse and corruption are systematic and it is done with full approval of the "management".
I am saying that AOL management responsible for DMOZ have been aware of the policies for listing porn galleries and have not deemed those policies to be abuse. If you want their reasons you should write to AOL and ask them. If they had then a certain meta would have been removed long ago. These policies and the allegations have been going for many years and preceded the existence of Admins when responsibility for investigation and action laid with AOL management. That is the corruption you have been alleging. I am not suggesting that Admins and Metas approve of Adult listing policies - indeed I am suggesting that it is quite possible they have no influence. I am not claiming any more or any less and those other issues have been done to death in other threads. Have you had enough time to concoct an answer to those two questions yet?
Correction even if possibility of such action exist editor will get ejected - just to be sure it doesn't happen.
Again, you are claiming AOL's secret seal of approval. Do you have any document that proves the listing of illegal underground porn sites or hundreds of deep links to such sites is done by AOL corporation approval? This a good idea. May be we should start emailing Time Warner directors like Richard Parsons, James Barksdale, Stephen Bollenbach and ask them if they approve of such listings in DMOZ and if it is part of AOL corporate policy to list illegal sites that break the federal laws and encourage the involvement of minors in porn?
I am saying that AOL management responsible for DMOZ have been aware of the policies for listing porn galleries and have not deemed those policies to be abuse. Please share any responses you get
Any proof? Any document? It seems all the DMOZ official guideline are against your claims and in reality condemns such practices. Is this seal of approval that you think AOL has granted corrupt editors something secret that they have only told you? Who was it in the AOL management that told you is OK to list illegal sites with hundreds of deep links?
Who do you think promoted and kept that meta as a meta despite numerous accusations and investigations preceding the Admin system? Of course the guidelines indicate that the listing policies employed in Adult image galleries are incorrect and an indicator of abuse. Why do you think I started the internal thread in December? It either had to be confirmed as wrong or properly documented as an exception. Talking about proof, have you come up with an answer yet to those two inconvenient bits of evidence that show your allegations of widespread systematic abuse are not true?
Now that we can agree that there is no document that provides a seal of approval for corruption and abuse in DMOZ, your next question is quite right. How can so open and obvious corruption and abuse continue for so long with no consequences for the people involved? The answer is very obvious and simple but it is not in claiming some imaginary seal of approval from AOL since it makes no sense for a public corporation to be involved in such affiliate programs and listings of illegal sites. The answer is that such open corruption can only continue with the involvement of some Admins, Metas and staffs. This is what makes the corruption and abuse systematic since it is done with full approval and protection of the "management".