DMOZ Scandal of the YEAR

LOL. You forgot to say about the pet cat.

Now tell me this and they so hated the webmasters as its not their clients. Then who are the NORMAL users they are reffering to. Actually the NORMAL users don't even know DMOZ and its existence. These Peeps either uses Yahoo, MSN or Google for search and if they want friends they go to myspace or friendster.

 

Hmmm, lots of reading there.

Like everyone else posting here I have no idea what "evidence" justified Annie's removal. However, I cannot believe that this lady is ever capable of abuse or corruption, she's an open book and a strident anti-abuse campaigner.

In stable democratic nations there are employment rules which give employees rights that protect them against arbitrary dismissal and that means that the employee gets to hear and respond to the accusations. And can take legal action if the dismissal goes ahead unfairly. So how does the ODP get away with secret cabals, secret evidence, no right of reply etc. Because editors are not employees but volunteers. A decently run organisation would nevertheless adopt good employment practises. Unfortunately the ODP is run by amateurs with no idea about good employment practises.

In stable democratic nations there are judicial practises where an individual is accused of corrupt practises. If an investigation shows a case to answer then the individual is questioned and given the right to give evidence in their defence. If sanctions are to be imposed the accused has the right to an open trial and confidence in the judicial system comes from the fact that proceeding are open and public. Secret trials and sentencing with the accused not present are the province of totalitarian regimes that sooner or later generally get their comeuppance.

I have heard the arguments about the "need" to protect the ODP by not revealing evidence but it seems far far more damage is done to the project by adopting practises Robert Mugabe and the government of Burma would be proud to have devised. No doubt they could come up with the exact same protection of the state arguments.

At the same time the ODP has used its secrecy rules to protect wrongdoers at the highest levels - Topix was one gross violation of its own rules, another was the "rules" about Adult listings that permitted a meta editor to list dozens of her own sites, and her sidekick to do the same. It is apparently no secret amongst meta and admin editors that organised crime has been involved in the Adult branch, at least in the past, yet it continues to exist. And not only exist but exist in a totally irresponsible way when it comes to the protection of minors who are editors and users of the ODP.

So you have an organisation which combines a lack of regard for good human resource management practises, a judicial system worthy of a banana republic, and hypocracy when the offender is at the top of the food chain. It is no wonder it gets bad press, it is totally self-inflicted.

There are quite a few removed editors who post here and I have no idea whether they were guilty of heinous crimes, simple correctible errors, or were set up. Once upon a time I believed that the removal processes were so devised as to avoid miscarriages of justice because most were very obvious, the offender knew what they had done, and because there were metas with backbones and a professional editor in chief with common sense. Once power was handed over to an unelected committee of amateurs the rot set in, there was no longer an "executive" to provide checks and balances on the power-hungry. And therefore a need to introduce transparency in those areas open to abuse such as removals.

The absence of transparency has another effect in that it is impossible to tell the true abusers and corrupt editors from those who are committed to the concepts and principles of the project but disgusted at the maladministration and hypocracy and who speak out. The habit of pushing all critical ex-editors into the abuser/corrupt category wherever possible is also reprehensible. In an open and transparent system, everyone could see whether an editor was guilty of corruption or wrongdoing, justice would be seen to be done. I have no doubt that the critics here would all support the removal of proven corrupt editors.

Two internal comments I've read that I think need a response...

It is a self-regulating elite with no transparency or accountability to the community of editors. It is a Zimbabwe or Burma in microcosm. Trust has to be earned by those who seek to govern - the alternative is intolerant dictatorship. When things are hidden it is natural to ask what is there to hide if everything is above board? The answer, I suspect, is that what is being hidden is likely to be far more embarrassing and cause more damage than the criticisms of secrecy. Questioning authority is a well-respected and effective (eventually) route to obtaining change in a good way, of achieving accountability and transparency, of putting the right people with the right skills in charge. When you are trying to change a totalitarian regime there will be casualties along the way history tells us. So no-one in Nazi occupied Europe or the subsequent Communist dictatorships should have questioned their governments? On that basis Europe would still be under a jackboot of one flavour or another.

What nonsense. The ODP publishes guidelines describing what sites are listable and editors pointing out where a site fails, providing said site is clearly not marketing hype/drivel/scam, and getting them to change their site accordingly helps people find good quality unique content on the Internet. Encouraging genuine people to produce great sites is a commendable activity and genuine honest ODP editors are in a perfect position to do that given the thousands of sites they view and the nose for a scam that many develop.

And finally... those who criticise posters in this forum... much of what is said may be nonsense but it is free and uncensored and you can pick what is sensible and useful from the crap and nonsense. That makes it 100 times more valuable than forums where dissent and opposing views are not tolerated. Accepting and using criticism is the only method by which individuals and organisations can grow and improve.

 

An update too on certain people in DMOZ who elect to say that multiple accounts are prohibited are now banned in DP for having the same.

Nice to see you again brizzie. All the readings are posted so please take your time.

 

I read everything before posting Jude

 

Welcome home, Sweetheart! That was PooPooButt, not Ivan!

 

You go away, they change their avatars... its not good enough... I swear that looks like a younger Ivan.

 

Is this the official rules of editors ?

 

At least 50% of editors are webmasters and it depends what they say on an external forum that decides whether they remain an editor. Breaching the secrecy rules would result in removal in most cases.

 

I love to read your thoughts, Brizzie. Welcome back!

@login
It is not an official rule. Some editors that have some association with DP are sometimes warned to stay away, either directly, or indirectly with veiled warnings in the internal forums.

The warnings on the internal forums have recently been reiterated with regards to annie's dismissal; in the reason for her dismissal, as stated in her permission logs, there is disguised claim that she might have favored her DP acquaintances. So you can imagine that the new editors will not want to be seen here.

You'll notice that "jinx" (meta-editor jcand) is refraining to post since his identity has been exposed, and that the meta with the multiple accounts (believed to be jimnoble) "copperdrum" and "martty" and "jimnoble" and "DPlurker" have been banned (presumbly for having quadriplicate accounts).

Perhaps they don't want to be accused of leaking the contents of the internal forum to us as well.

The DMOZ editors that used to hang around here have cleared the place. That's interesting.

 

And they say I can't connect the dots. Dot1 to Dot2.

Ahhhhh Nebbie "Boy" again I beat you.

Theres a new DMOZ troll in town and the name is.....Nilt...My eyes on you.

 

I find it very disappointing that individuals supposed to take a high moral position and protect the ODP from rule breakers should so easily break the rules of other sites such as this one. I don't condone the actions of those here who have been removed from the ODP and sneaked back in and the same applies to ODP senior editors duplicating accounts elsewhere - in fact it is worse since they are supposed to be upholding honesty and trustworthyness.

 

I suppose that the motive of meta-editors is to give more weight to pro-ODP arguments here at DP through by multiplying themselves electronically, haha.

It's PR - but they got caught and it backfired.

I suppose that the motive of the editor(s) leaking the information is to shed light on a grossly unfair and highly suspicious dismissal.

It's investigative journalism.

 

They have too. The Editors here that are/were actually Pro-ODP all got "let go" or left, so it stands to reason all the ones that do it now are duplicate meta accounts.

 

The name is Bond. James Bond.

 

I'm not sure why people are surprised by the actions of people like Jim Noble. These are the same people who hang out at the Resourceless Zone where, if anything, there is even less tolerance for not toeing the party line and more disdain for the rights and opinions of other people than in the primary DMOZ inner sanctum.

But I guess it does demonstrate quite clearly the hypocrisy of these people:

"DMOZ has rules. Rules must be obeyed. Rules must be enforced. I have no choice. (Except for those we don't like or other people's rules.)"

Odd how "Nuremberg" pops into the mind...

 

I am really suprised by the problems Dmoz is facing

So I think human editors for a very big directory is very hard to find

also some days back

I browsed through webmaster category in Dmoz

I was shocked as there was no digitalpoint forums on it!


One of the premier forums not there is very bad!!!!

 

Digital Point has at least 15 listings!

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=digitalpoint

 

This post in internal ODP should give light, minstrel.

Back and forth communication with annie ? Someone I think works as a circus clown.

 

It's called "The Big Lie". Hitler, Goebbels, and Goering were masters of this, if you recall.

"Say it loud enough, long enough, and often enough and maybe people will start to believe it - maybe even you will start to believe it."

 

"At the end of the day though, meta and admin decision making has to put the directory and its integrity ahead of any personal loyalties and friendships - or popularity for that matter. If you think about it, you wouldn't want it any other way."

Wake up, Jim! The directory has no integrity! To set aside personal loyalties and friendships means you have no loyalty and you are not a friend. And to think there actually was a time when I held you in respect. Geez!