DMOZ cleanup: Next phase

While I am far from convinced that the cleanup of DMOZ pro-pedophilia sites is a fait accompli or that it's safe to relax vigilance about those sites and the Adult category in general, it does appear that thanks to editors like compostannie and retired editors like brizzie, some progress is being made.

Unfortunately, that is not the only socially irresponsible aspect of DMOZ. Some attention needs to be focused on some of the other questionable sites listed in DMOZ as "best of the net" or under the rubric of "free speech", including those that encouraging young girls and boys to glamorize eating disorders and self-injury.

See DMOZ and web sites promoting anorexia and self-injury.

 

I do not think, DMOZ is promoting anything. DMOZ tries to classify sites with original content. How successful it is at that is another question, but that's the mission.

Anyway, what you are trying to accomplish by by pointing out pedophilia, self-injury, or pro-anorexia sites listed in DMOZ? I mean, sure, these are big problems, but does a DMOZ listing of such site have any impact on the actual problem? I very much doubt it. There are definitely better ways how to fight pedophilia than trying to fix DMOZ.

Poor compostannie devoted herself to clear the pedophilia mess, a not very enjoyable work. I remember one of your posts mentioning the term "shaping". Is it what you are doing to her?

 

Yes. While some progress may have been made with that massive child porn thread, DMOZ stills seems to turn a blind eye to just-as-destructive topics such as pro-anorexia, pro-suicide, pro-drugs, etc. With the millions of people that use DMOZ, I hate to think about how many troubled youths may have already visited these sites and may think these are acceptable solutions to problems they may be having.

 

Social irresponsibility on the part of DMOZ perhaps. I mean the pro-pedophile sites are being removed and the guidelines have changed. It was a long-drawn out and painful fight but the fight was won. Minstrel can speak for himself but my first reaction is the objective is to have harmful sites removed and when it comes to pro-pedophile sites the objective has been met hopefully.

It could do, there is no way of telling. Not being listed is a sure fire way of guaranteeing no impact. DMOZ distributes its data to over 600 downstream data users so one listing means eventually 600 new links to the same piece of damaging material.

There are hundreds of ways to fight pedophilia, fixing DMOZ is just one of them. The concept that you would ignore it seems to me would only give comfort to pedophiles - every avenue, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant needs to be closed down when it is identified. I cannot understand the mindset of anyone who thinks otherwise. And I find it quite distressing that some people including editors think it doesn't matter if the biggest directory in the world lists pro-pedophile sites. It matters. It matters a lot.

I don't think anyone could shape Annie. She does what she thinks is the right thing to do and cannot be influenced in that way.

Original and valuable content. Not just original. And valuable to the users of the directory. How valuable are sites that glamorize eating disorders and self-injury? Does having a social conscience conflict with DMOZ objectives? I would say not. Listing all sites regardless, claiming not to have any responsibility for the potential repercussions of listings, I don't know that this is sustainable any longer. As the biggest directory by a wide margin I believe DMOZ does have a social responsibility that extends to not listing sites liable to cause harm to young and vulnerable people, to putting clear warnings on adult-related categories and branches, to protecting younger editors from adult-related material, and so on.

It is an interesting extension of the debate though either way.

 

I wish you would stop saying this as it's misleading. The guidelines have changed recently, but it has nothing to do with anything that happened here. Site Selection Criteria has been the only section of the guidelines that has been changed in the past few years. And it has nothing to do with pedophile sites, it was the addition of the "Spider Food, Lead Generators, and Content Mills" section and "Is it easy to assess the site's trustworthiness?" section. These changes have been in the works for a long time (as you well know). The Adult guidelines have not changed, and none of the other guidelines really have any importance. (hence, I didn't check them to see if they had changed)

You're free to have your opinions. But as a non-editor, your opinions will not change anything that happens in ODP, and you should know that.

 

When any human edited directory with a significant internet presence, especially one linked to Google, takes the trouble to choose to link certain sites, especially since they purportedly seleect only quality sites, they are by definition endorsing and promoting those sites. If you can't see that, you have your head buried in the sand.

Exactly. I thought that was abundantly clear both in the OP for this thread and in the blog entry.

I think you're mistaken. But even allowing that argument for a moment, what socially redeeming value does including sites sich as these in DMOZ offer? What is the rationale or justification for having sites like this listed among the DMOZ "quality sites" or "best of the web" they purportedly aim to have included in the directory? What service does including such sites offer? And to whom?

 

How can I say this politely? Bull excrement. Yes. That will do.

Try to remember that this isn't just about DMOZ editors any more. This is about AOL, Google, law enforcement agencies, and the court of public opinion now.

 

Want to complain about the Yahoo directory category too? How about Wikipedia? Or is this just another dmoz bashing?

There are plenty of pro-anorexia web pages. Your choice to focus your attention on the dmoz category and not the others shows that you are not really interested in removing these sites from the Internet, but that you are interested in continually your anti-ODP rhetoric.

 

Ok, first the Wikipedia article on pro-anorexia is just an overview about those that are pro-anorexia and their reasoning behind their views. Wikipedia isn't PROMOTING these ideas. But DMOZ (and Yahoo apparently) list sites that ARE promoting these self-destructtive and potentially fatal behaviors.

P.S. Just because Yahoo chooses to list similar garbage does not change the argument. Quick trying to divert attention from DMOZ's immoral practices.

 

All in good time. Did you notice the thread title? "Next phase"? It didn't say "Last phase" now, did it?

You're dead wrong about that but it's no surprise to me that you would choose to take that position.

Exactly!

 

Minstrel, you are obviously fighting DMOZ, not pedophiles or other real problems. I cannot believe, some people do no see that. Words like pedophilia carry so much emotion that it makes your brain stop thinking and seeing things in the right perspective. You choose the means to accomplish your goals wisely. (Sorry for these harsh words, elections are coming soon in my country and I am a bit susceptible to anyone trying to manipulate or misuse anything.)

To brizzie:
I respect your opinion, but do not agree. Leaving pro-pedophilia or other immoral sites out might not be as good as it seems. First, morality depends on society and changes in time. Second, opposing view is useful. Imagine this scenario: A parent comes to a site warning about the danges of pedophilia, reads a bit of the text and decides that it is not such a big problem and does not educate their child. On the other hand, what if the parent comes to a site that promotes pedophilia, they will be alarmed and much likely to take action.

 

How is it misleading to say the guidelines have changed. Then say the guidelines have changed... We know they have changed to prevent material being listed that aids and abets pedophiles - you can find the revised wording attached to the relevant pedophile material category. You can debate influences till the cows come home but it matters not - the guidelines have changed and that is what is important. Unless you are being pedantic that is and are excluding category descriptions debated and agreed on in forum from guidelines.

So I shouldn't express my opinions? Because it is futile? Just shut up? I don't think so! Never been my style. In fact it's a red rag to a bull.

It is like a defence to a speeding ticket being that the two cars behind me were also speeding and they didn't get a ticket... Two (or three or a hundred) wrongs don't make a right.

And why is this DMOZ bashing? Anything that makes DMOZ a better place to be for users and for editors is pro-DMOZ. I don't see anything malicious or destructive to DMOZ objectives in what minstrel raises - a socially responsible DMOZ might well give a huge PR boost at a time of declining editor numbers, another edge, something different. Like an energy company that goes green or a coffee manufacturer that goes fair trade. Yahoo, whoever, lists unethical sites so DMOZ must do so also? Does DMOZ lead or is it led? The point is that editors should not automatically assume that raising an issue is a DMOZ bash just because it happens outside. Or was the internal discussion on listing pro-pedophile sites which resulted in a change of wordings and removal of a category an internal DMOZ bash by editors and equally worthy of criticism on that score. A DMOZ can do no wrong is the most destructive possible attitude any editor can take.

I've not looked at the sites mentioned by minstrel and don't know what my opinion is on keep or discard but I do think that discussing it in concept is an interesting proposition.

 

I have certainly never advocated the removal of sites that explain the condition of pedophilia, educational sites. I do strongly object to listing sites that pedophiles use to promote and advance their vile activities. What you are effectively saying is that it is a good thing if a handful of kids get raped and abused every year because it makes other parents more vigilent. Besides, material that appeals to the prurient interests of pedophiles is now banned from inclusion in DMOZ so your argument has been lost amongst editors.

I don't know. My first instincts say that on balance there are other classes of site DMOZ might benefit from excluding. But I am not closed minded, a debate is a good thing and trying to close it down by assigning hidden motivations (a) won't work and (b) is unhelpful. Why not treat the subject matter at face value - minstrel's motivations are irrelevant really. He is an opponent of DMOZ but not for the usual reasons - failed webmaster with spam sites, removed editor, etc. At least listen to what his objections are and why he opposes DMOZ, you could learn a lot. Even it what you learn is that DMOZ often is its own worst enemy by misrepresenting itself through poor guidelines and communications.

The history of the modern British Labour Party and the rise of Tony Blair is quite relevant. Labour were going nowhere pursuing left wing policies and making themselves unelectable. They had to listen to the external critics and reinvent themselves. Had they decided not to listen to non-members, the equivalent of DMOZ users as opposed to editors, they would still be in Opposition. Those external critics were not viewed as Labour bashing - they saved the party and brought it back to power and unprecedented electoral success.

 

No, this is clearly illegal. I am not sure whether sites promoting pedophilia are illegal or not and it is not upto me.
But you are right, my argument headed in this direction. And I think it is better, when parents gets vigiliant due to seeing a pro-pedophilia site than due to what you described.
But please understand, that it is not my goal to add these sites to dmoz, I just wanted to point out that
a) it is not as black and white as presented by Minstrel
b) it is not as important in the whole picture of DMOZ, there are pros and cons in both listing or not listing these sites

Minstrel is free to dislike dmoz (I have my own objections regarding DMOZ), but I do not like his methods.

 

That is part of my objection to those DMOZ editors who want to continue to "debate" this. It IS black and white and there are no pros to listing the kinds of sites I am discussing - they are damaging to others, demonstrably so, and there are no arguments for listing them that have anything to do with understanding that fact.

It is irrelevant whether or not you like me or my methods and totally unimportant. What matters is the end result, which is the removal of sites like these and a rewriting of policies and probably a reorganization of structure to prevent them being relisted by malicious or ill-informed editors such as you.

 

...read today in newspaper about the number of children dying in Africa due to starvation. That's a paramount problem.
People suffering from anorexia ... still a serious problem.
Websites promoting anorexia ... kind of a problem.
DMOZ referencing these sites in a category buried deep ... come again?

Sorry for being cynical and sorry for repeating myself: There are much more efficient ways to deal with the serious problem.

 

You're problem is two-fold (at least), vlasta:

1. you'd rather defend DMOZ and the status quo than actually do anything
2. your arguments are logically flawed

Here's what you have suggested:

1. stop trying to clean up DMOZ because Yahoo is just as bad
2. stop trying to do anything about the problem of DMOZ listing pro-pedophilia, pro-anorexia, pro-self-injury, pro-suicide websites because these sites exist and therefore DMOZ should promote them
3. if you pass a woman in an alley who is being beaten and raped, do not stop to do anything about it because that is just one person and there are hundreds and thousands dying in Africa

My suggestion for you:

If you don't like my methods and believe that there are better ways to accomplish the changes you think are more important, go and do those things. I'm not holding you back. In fact, I'd encourage you to follow what you believe in (if anything). Doing something is better than doing nothing. By all means, just go and do it. Or just go. Your choice.

Or would you rather just hang around here doing nothing except defending the DMOZ position and criticizing me for the methods I have chosen?

 

Pro-pedophile sites.That debate has been had, the decisions made, a reversal now would require a consensus of editors you cannot get. Annie is now implementing. Feel free to open it up again internally - I'd be interested in learning the results!

 

How about you read the thread about this subject before you come up with such nonsense? It is illegal, as it was shown in that thread.

 

Point of view presented by you: DMOZ listing or not listing mentioned sites is important; sites should not be listed, because they are harmful
My point of view: not convinced, the listing of these sites is harmful; even if it is harmful, the DMOZ listing is a negligible part of the problem

I am not defending DMOZ position - I am agruing with you, because I do not like the way you are presenting these problems and making other people do things. Why don't you fix it instead of compostannie? Did you try to become an editor of the categories in question?

And yes, I will stop criticize you right now and start doing something useful. Sounds delightful.