Resigned -

I tried to give you green again but it was not possible.

The second part of links is specially interesting because it proves that existence of corruption is a know fact among the editors, while in the mean time we have DMOZ editors here that just keep defending DMOZ and deny the corruption.

 

Obviously Spendlessly should spend a little more time trying to figure out what corruption is and not just do a forum search for corruption and print out those that talk about how to combat it.

Editors have admitted repeatedly that there is some corruption - duh - there are humans working there.

We want to know specifics so we can stamp it out. One form of corruption is when copyright laws are violated - repeatedly - by someone posting something that they were specifically told was not to be posted. Remember an application that was filled out Spendlessly, remember the acceptance email you received. Sorry - dear - you're the corrupt one here - come here so I can stamp you out.

 

Are you threatening him?

This is not resourceless zone, if you like to intimidate people then crawl back to RZ.

 

Would you please elaborate a little bit further on how he has suddenly become the corrupt one?

 

Yeah - consider me stamped then. Somebody has to get the facts out.

... and I'm not sure what kind of corruption you are looking for lmocr. I have clearly highlighted the fact that internal corruption exists in many forms - and that the editors are in fact aware of it as a whole.

But to break it down here are some of the most blatant and rampit forms of corruption:

- A person obtains multiple editor accounts. This allows them to "cool" sites, and add their own/friends sites without having to worry about being caught.

- A person sells people entry into DMOZ.

- Editor bribes someone who is listed to do them favors or they will be removed.

- Editors bump others' sites who compete with theirs.

 

this is all pure speculation on your part. What you have posted so far is no secret, they are all being or have been discussed and what ever action was needed to whom ever was most likely taken. To me it shows dmoz takes corruption seriously...If you look at some of the replies in these posts, you'll see most are concerned and would like to find the rats in odp...which makes me wonder why all editors are called corrupt and dmoz is a corrupt beast. I still so no meat to your accusations on your opening statement:

again where the beef?

 

Ok dude, so it's clear that there are some dirty editors. BUT - we all know this. It's human nature. The point though is that if they catch someone doing this then they ban the editor.

Showing proof it "happens" is accomplishing nothing - because we all know it does happen. You were implying that it runs rampant and all the DMOZ editors know it and don't do anything or contribute to it. You've posted threads where they were concerned about a corrupt editor and wanted to do something about it.

My point is, you've showed no proof that a corrupt editor currently exists, and is known, and nobody does anything.

 

I agree with you there. But there is also that closed door blue shield syndrome. It's like that good ole boys club that has parties in town that no one else can go to. Once in a while they have some hot girls from that town over and take advantage of them. At what point would that behaviour become everyone's business rather than just an internal concern of the club?

 

Who..do you know who these corrupt editors are or are you just bitchin about it? if so spill the beans and you'll feel better and so will the other editors at odp who don't tolerate that kind of corruption, I can almost guarantee it, but you need a bit more proof, a lot more than your showing.

 

Webster Online Dictionary corruption: 1 a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : DEPRAVITY b : DECAY, DECOMPOSITION - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/corruption

By posting internal communications - regardless of how much they prove that he is wrong about his corruption theory - is wrong. This action has impaired his integrity (assuming of course that he ever had any - and that he is a he ). Notice that not once has he given any proof to back up his statements that DMOZ is corrupt - all he's given is proof that editors are working very hard to get rid of corruption.

I'm sorry for threatening to stamp him out - I didn't realize that that type of action was restricted to non-editors.

 

We also wonder why you don't get it, may be because you don't want to.

The problem is not that it has been corruption in the past or it is happening right now. The problem is that DMOZ is controlled by corrupt editors that effectively resist implementation of any kind of procedure or regulation that can put a stop to corruption.

Corruption is effectively the culture of DMOZ. It has happened in the past, it is happening right now and it will happen in the future.

 

These type of people are called whistle blowers but don't be angry, DMOZ have some quite famous companies in this regard:

Nixon, Exxon, Enron,......and now DMOZ.

 

Your right. You have clearly not explained it well enough. I am not sure how any group of data that eventually has to be gone through by someone at some point is not a queue. Clearly it is. Your failure to accept that makes it seem like you are just trying to be obtuse.

Doesn't matter how or why you sort the data. The data is there, and it is waiting to be processed.. That is pretty much the criteria for being in a queue. I guess you could argue that submissions to DMOZ have nothing to do with being an editor and editors never see them or look at them you might have a point.

 

BS - "These type of people are called whistle blowers" - this type of action is akin to those who sign a statement of nondisclosure when granted access to classified information and then end up on trial as traitors. No one calls them whistle blowers - because there was nothing to blow the whistle on - and in some countries they get shot (not just stamped ).

 

BS- nondisclosure does not cover criminal activity.

But I understand why you like that it should cover it.

 

You're absolutely correct - however, if you read post # 56 in this thread - there is a perfect explanation.

 

Actually the definition of a whistle blower is someone who in spite of the consequences, legal or otherwise speaks out against perceived injustices and wrongs.

I forget, are you a DMOZ editor?

What difference does it make anyways? The original poster came here and said he resigned because he didn't like the corruption going on with DMOZ. People said he is not an editor and he proved he was. Then they said prove there is corruption, he proved there is and now people say he is a traitor and/or that the corruption is known about already so it doesn't count.

Why is the process of logic so off-base on one side of this discussion?


3 entries found for whistle blower.
whis·tle·blow·er or whis·tle-blow·er or whistle blower Audio pronunciation of "whistle blower" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hwsl-blr, ws-)
n.

One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority: “The Pentagon's most famous whistleblower is... hoping to get another chance to search for government waste” (Washington Post).

whistle-blowing n.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

whistle blower

n : an informant who exposes wrongdoing within an organization in the hope of stopping it; "the law gives little protection to whistleblowers who feel the public has a right to know what is going on"; "the whistleblower was fired for exposing the conditions in mental hospitals" [syn: whistle-blower, whistleblower]

 

No he didn't prove his statement about "Internal corruption > DMOZ" or his statement about the "many forms of internal ODP corruption"

All he proved is that there are corrupt editors out there and that there are other editors working together to try to fix the problem by discovering and eliminating the corrupt editors. Fact of life - if you put thousands of people together, at least one will be corrupt - but not all of them are and neither is the project those people are working on. That project may be the Catholic religion, Boeing, DMOZ, whatever.

A whistleblower reveals wrongdoing within an organization - yes I'm typing while you are - there wasn't any revealed. Did you even read what the screenshots show? Point out one thing - other than his words - that show any wrongdoing. Ergo - he can't be a whistleblower - he doesn't meet the definition.

 

So what are you guys going to do? Send the DMOZ mafia to his house and "teach him a lesson"?

 

There is no amount of information that I can provide that would convince some of you fine folks that corruption STILL exists at DMOZ. That's okay - continue to live in the matrix if desire, in the meantime I'll be on the Nebuchadnezzar trying to do the right thing.

... one last comment before I depart from this thread for eternity, as I feel I have completed my moral obligation.

There are many great people at the ODP. There are people who edit tirelessly, and in a fair manner. Droves of them in-fact. The entire point is - there are still many who are easily able to cheat the system for their own monetary gain, and it has adverse affects on others.

If I bring these things up internally - NOTHING will be done. Yes, yes the specific person in question will be terminated, but that doesn't break the chain. The world has to see this if the ODP is to ever do anything constructive in the way of putting an end to it entirely. I am a believer in what the ODP is trying to do, that's why I signed up. It's a wonderful idea... I wish the ODP the best of luck, and hope that they can re-secure the sanctity of the program before it gets further out of hand. Because after all - don't you think having editor rights to multiple categories under multiple accounts (resulting in the ability to essentially add/remove sites from the Google directory at will) is far too much power for any ONE person to have. So one corrupt editor is too many IMO. It needs to stop completely.

I wish the best to all of you, even those who hate me with a purple passion. I will hold no grudges with you - and I respect your opinions on the matter. I am simply too set in my ways, and too morally outspoken have allowed this matter to simmer in my brain any longer.