Zzzzzzzzzzzz I know you are desperately trying to avoid them but 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? A reminder. 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.
Read in this forum, read in wikipedia, read wpw, read in.......... you can see there is plenty of proof, but the apologists close their eyes to any proof and instead insist on some imaginary seal of approval for corruption and abuse by AOL. The funny thing is that they can never come up with one shred of evidence or any logical explanation about why a public corporation like AOL should get involved in affiliate marketing of underground porn sites.
There are plenty of allegations, plenty of insinuations, plenty of circumstantial evidence. Plenty of conclusions drawn. Certainly an acceptance that small scale corruption exists, and that there are some dubious listing practices in Adult branch, which is less than 0.5% of all DMOZ listings. Even if you add in Gambling and a couple of other highly spammy areas you still have more than 99% of the directory left. Repeating the same allegations over and over in different places doesn't add to the evidence, it is just repetition. Why would they, no-one ever accused AOL of being involved in affiliate marketing of underground porn sites - you were the one who twisted things in that direction to try and make some point only you are aware of. The only mention of AOL otherwise was that they, meaning their appointed employees working in the ODP division and acting as AOL employees, were aware of the listing policies being applied to Adult image galleries and did not consider them to be corrupt. There is no implication that they or their employees made any financial or other beneficial gain from that decision or authorised illegal actions by editors. As I suggested before, write to AOL and ask them for the reasons. It is likely that the answer will come back along the lines of either pornography is part of the Internet and DMOZ should reflect that fact of life, or piss off it's our directory and none of your business how we determine policies relating to our property. But who knows, try it and see. I can ask the same questions for as many times as you like gworld. You've given your "proof" but seem very reluctant to address the contrary evidence. Why is that? Do you think it might weaken your case maybe. 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.
So what is this listing policies that your are referring too? If it is not the listing of affiliate sites for underground porn site which makes AOL part of this whole corruption and abuse system, then why such actions are tolerated and "senior" editors can do this year after year with full immunity? I understand your problem as the official apologist of DMOZ but there is only 2 ways that this can work. 1) Either AOL has given it's seal of approval to corrupt practices that makes AOL part of these actions OR 2) AOL has got nothing to do with it and "senior" editors can do it with immunity because it is systematic and protected by "management" so which one is it?
The ones that allow multiple listings of sites by the same owner in the same or a closely related category and that allow certain editors to list tens of sites they own on the same basis. Except they are not sites by the rules of other branches but effectively deeplinks sometimes with a vanity URL attached. You know the ones. Shame on you gworld, your imagination is usually far more vivid than that. Neither because the questions are based on a presumption that is flawed. 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.
You must be right. I have presumed that there are multiple deep links, who cares that I have given example of such sites. I have presumed that these site belong to Meta and editors, who cares that I have shown the ownership. I have presumed that there are links to underground porn and illegal sites, who cares that anybody can check the facts by search in DMOZ. I have presumed that such abuse and corruption, continues years after years with full blessing of DMOZ management and who cares that Admin has participated in discussions here and there are aware of the situation and nothing happens to these editors. What is not presumed, is your claims of AOL awareness of all these things and the support of AOL as public corporation for such actions that you do not have a shred of evidence to support. Are you sure that you know what presumption means?
No argument there. I am sure some do and I am sure some don't. How can it be corruption when it is out in the open, investigated by AOL managers who AOL appointed to be arbiters of what was OK and not OK, and deemed OK? If you can answer that one then you might just have a point. Obviously they are, there is nothing secret or under the carpet when it comes to awareness of such things. Of course the AOL managers responsible for managing the ODP division are aware of multiple listings and where editors own the sites - the accusations of abuse preceded the Admins and would have been investigated and ruled on by those managers since that was part of their role pre-Admins. Who knows one way or another but their managers were acting in their name. Note I am referring only to multiple deeplinks owned by editors not to ilegal sites. I am sure there are some such sites. I don't know who they belong to or who listed them. I have never suggested that AOL is in any way involved in such sites in some illicit way and since I don't know who owns or listed such sites there is no evidence I have seen to link them to any editors either in any underhand way. What you are trying to do is to assign all responsibility to the volunteer Admins and somehow exonerate AOL from any responsibility. The fact is that pre-Admin, when DMOZ was under total AOL management, is when the multiple deeplinking policies were developed and when the accusations of corruption began. The situation in Adult was largely inherited and if you check the stats you will see there has actually been a tremendous reduction in sites listed in Adult since, perhaps coincidentally perhaps not, the Admins were appointed. Or maybe you are implying that AOL's staff have acted outside their remit and authority. But then I couldn't comment on that as I don't know what remit or authority they were given. And I don't see how you would know either. And yet you still avoid those awkward pieces of contrary evidence. 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.
When a corruption is open and common knowledge that is when the corruption is systematic and accepted practice. Look at any country with functioning legal system and while they have corruption, it is hidden and if it comes to light, the people responsible will get punished for their crimes. On the other hand, in corrupt dictatorships while there are laws against corruption and bribery, everybody knows that the majority of people in government are corrupt or on the take but there is no functioning legal systems to deals with those crimes. There are many guidelines in DMOZ against corruption and abuse but those are nothing but paper tiger. DMOZ system is a good representation for a corrupt management that has accepted corruption and abuse as daily way of doing business.
Well, that is a consistent answer gworld. I'm not persuaded though. Perhaps you could help by addressing those awkward pieces of contrary evidence. 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.