How to find corrupt DMOZ editors?

I would say, as with every organization or gathering of people there will be someone who is corrupt
but the accusations of widespread corruption in dmoz by some posters more often than not seem to have very low or no evidence. If I am incorrect someone please feel free to prove me wrong.

I would suggest if anyone finds proof of evidence of a corrupt editor to feel free to report the case to a editor in digitalpoint, you can even pick someone you might “like” or personally trust more than others

 

How do you define widespread?

 

I would say to avoid confuse it is best everyone goes by the dictionary definition

wide·spread

1. Spread or scattered over a considerable extent: widespread fallout from a nuclear explosion.

2. Occurring or accepted widely: a widespread misunderstanding.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=widespread

 

Well that is the problem. If you suppose for a minute that there is 100 senior editors that are not very honest and divide that by the number of people who can actually do something which is about 300 then you will have 1/3 spread which can be considered widespread but if you divide the same number to total number of editors who have only editing right in their casserole recipe category or about 7200, then you will have less than 2% which is not widespread.

In your opinion, how much corruption is acceptable before something has to be done about it?

 

What an interesting definition of corruption: "Having an opinion that differs from minstrel's." We'll have to add that one to Webster's.

 

Well Gworld the dictionary definition is all we or anyone in this world have. Until there is a better way or someone creates one, this is the best there is. Everybody has a chance to search through all the directory, if you find corruption then report it. Gworld if you are a editor, then you know every editor can check the work of every editor in dmoz. Since people seem to trust editors in digitalpoint more than resource-zone editors, then I suggest they should report to editors in this forum.

When someone goes to court to sue someone and/or someone is prosecuted by the state, proof is needed. If someone does not have proof, and if proof can not be found, most likely there will be no case.

Your post also has no proof of how many editors edit how much, it is just what you typed “suppose“.

Also to answer your question, no corruption should be tolerated, that is why I ask people to report any they may find

 

Court cases are also public documents, I will have no problem with DMOZ if they back up their "claims" of fighting corruption by making the whole process of abuse reporting and handling public.

Let people report the abuse allegation about the editors in a public forum and DMOZ response either dismissal of report or removal of editor should be public too. An open and honest procedure for abuse handling will definitely improve people's confidence in DMOZ honesty, don't you think so?

 

In real life people don't generally report suspicions about crime in a publicly. Not unless they want libel cases raised against them. Usually you would report the suspicion to the relevant authorities and they investigate to see if there are any charges to answer. That is what happens with DMOZ. Where it diverges is that where the allegation seems to have substance the investigation and evidence is not revealed to the accused and nor do they (generally) have a right of reply or to face the accusers. Because of the requirement for unanimity in the case of editor removals, and because not even gworld claims all meta editors are corrupt (only a third at last claim), the system errs quite strongly on giving the benefit of the doubt. But I am not entirely 100% comfortable with a system that could potentially evict someone who is innocent and the evidence is either faked or circumstantial. To my knowledge there has been a case of a successful appeal and reinstatement but if you are innocent you have to know the charges and evidence in order to appeal and that is unlikely. On the other hand I have seen evictees complaining about being unfairly removed and even without access to the evidence presented and meta debate it is clear from the editing logs, which record everything an editor does and which are available to every editor, precisely the reasons for the removal. Only one in my time had me stumped for an answer.

The system works against DMOZ PR interests quite often. Someone claims to have been removed unfairly, for arguing with a meta or complaining for example. The logs, however, show them clearly removing their competition or being a removed editor who has sneaked back in or other clear abuse. But because of the confidentiality thing the evictee's claims can't be countered and them shown to be lying cheating toe rags.

I believe there is an honest procedure for abuse handling - I know many of the metas whose agreement is required for a removal would never tolerate a dishonest one. In addition the evidence is usually so clear through logs open to every editor that the process can be seen to work by all editors who know what to look for. But that still keeps it in-house. Opening it up further to outside scrutiny? No. Most allegations have no substance and where they do it is an internal HR issue - no organisation, public or private, holds non-criminal personell disciplinary reviews in public. And whose confidence in its honesty would DMOZ be trying to improve? The parent company and primary data users seem satisfied. Most experienced and productive editors seem satisfied. Most users of the directory use it because it is better than getting 100 examples of the same useless site in a Google search so they are satisfied. Who is left? Some vocal webmasters, a handful a year who complain compared to hundreds of thousands who got listed, a small number of evicted editors most of whom were on the scam and got caught, and a small number of anti-DMOZ campaigners. Whether it is right or wrong doesn't matter but DMOZ really does not care whether those groups are not confident that DMOZ is not open about individual abuse investigations.

A system that did allow every spurious and malicious bit of crap levelled against editors to be published and publicly scrutinised would, however, badly impact on editor confidence and cause immeasurable damage to productivity. For that reason, and because there is no precedent for non-criminal personnel disciplinary proceedings to be held in public anywhere else in the public and private sectors, it will not happen.

 

Blah, blah, blah, we need to protect corrupt editors.

 

No. In real life people do not report abuse to the organization in which the abuse occurs when they have no faith that the organization will take any action (or if they fear some sort of reprisal). That's why most places have ombudsmen, whistle-blower legislation, human rights tribunals, and independent police investigatory boards, and that's why often the first report that surfaces is revealed in the press.

Remember Watergate?

 

Is there anything stopping the press from reporting widespread corruption in DMOZ, except maybe a lack of verifiable facts?

BTW, I remember Watergate. I remember Richard Nixon got into office and stopped the war in Viet Nam. How is this any diffferent from the methods gworld is attempting to use with DMOZ? Or are you saying corruption can be a good thing if used to make things better? Please clarify.

 

Just read the damn post, Annie.

Brizzie, as others before him, suggested that people should be reporting these concerns to DMOZ. I am simply pointing out that there are often good reasons why people report abuses to someone other than the organization in which the abuse occurs.

Would I report something directly to DMOZ? No. I might to an individual editor if I trusted that editor and thought the editor had any power to do something. I wouldn't report it to DMOZ or to most DMOZ editors because in my opinion that would be a complete waste of time.

I would assume that as an editor you have more faith in the DMOZ bureaucracy than I do. I accept that. You do things your way and I'll continue to do things my way.

 

This has long been recognised as a problem and your solution is actually one of the preferred routes. The general abuse report link is there for people who trust it and want to use it. There are circumstances where even experienced editors would not use it. About half the abuse reports I raised were via the link, the remainder via a meta I trusted to take it seriously and investigate. It is a perfectly acceptable method. If you don't know a meta you trust then route is via someone else you trust, like Annie, who can pass it onto someone they trust.

 

The key in my previous comment is "I trusted that editor and thought the editor had any power to do something", bu which I meant "directly", not passing it along to someone else.

I might trust Annie - I don't necessarily trust all the people she trusts. She seems to have a very different opinion of people like orlady and lmocr than I do, for example.

 

I did read it and I understand what you're saying and why you're saying it. What I don't understand is why the press isn't reporting on this if it's really a problem. Is it because they don't know or is it because they can't find a real problem? We all know the press loves a good corruption story, so I'm just wondering why they're silent on this? I would expect them to fall all over themselves to publicize the problem if it were real, but that's assuming they even know about it...

 

I like that advise.. Just wondering that even if they approve one site a day it would be lot..

do they have any new links page for DMOZ?, just like http://www.a1directorysearch.com/dir/New/

 

I've been an editor for a little over a year - let's say 400 days. I've added 4070 sites. There are many editors who have a much higher daily add rate than I do. Does that make you feel a little better

 

I notice another editor not too far from this post has added about 5000 sites in under 3 months too.

 

Hi lmocr

You might be faster but just wondering that our bhanvad.com site started in 2002 but it not lited after 4 + years and there are many directories just born in 2004 and 05 they are there in dmoz, why, how ?

 

When a site was "born" isn't that important in the scheme of things. Rather - how comprehensive is the site compared to other available sites.

I visted your site - personally (this is just my opinion) I think you have a significant number of empty categories.