Application of 2257 to the ODP

Fair enough, would you like me to go see and report back here or is everything fine as is?

I was more concerned that he identified those who spoke up. I'm more than insuinating that he left parts out, I'm stating it as fact...parts were left out.

 

Works for me.

 

The problem is that no one spoke up, they spoke for keeping the guide line that makes listing child porn sites possible.

Rephrase the part that was left out without mentioning the editor name and post it. State your facts.

 

OK, but like I said, I really don't know if the meaning was changed in this case. Give me a few minutes, the puppy wants to go out and he comes first...

 

Changing a guideline (aka rule) is not going to change the fact that sometimes things get listed that shouldn't get listed. Admins/metas/editalls do not do 100% of the additions to the directory, nor do they approve/monitor 100% of the additions. Therefore, it is possible that an editor with a motive different than ODPs is able to list sites that we should not list. There are editors that have not read the guidelines, and list almost everything that is submitted to "their" category without fully reviewing it according to our guidelines. (We try to find these editors quickly, and change their habits.)

There are also sites added by abusive editors in the past that cannot be re-reviewed because it would take too much time. Therefore, the sites are left listed until another editor stumbles upon them and points out that they should not be listed.

 

Sorry gworld, I had a puppy tugging on my arm and had to protect my keyboard from his paws as I typed...very distracting in a wonderful sort of way.

I should have said I really don't recall how the meaning was changed in this case.

Still have to go look but now ALL the dogs want to play... They own me so I gotta do that first...

 

There is no guideline that allows child porn to be listed - the policy is not to list child porn sites and always has been. But the policy is scattered around and not in the right place. Plus it needs backing up with guidelines on how to implement it effectively - giving editors assistance they need to combat this type of site clearly and unambiguously.

Minstrel - this isn't about exposing issues, that has been done. It isn't about paraphrasing internal discussions, that is allowed under certain conditions. It is about releasing internal discussions with information that identifies specific editors, three of them, and it is a fact that doing so will kill off internal discussion. When you start publicly trying to embarrass individuals by publishing things in this way any debate of any value is instantly dead. And this issue needed a proper debate if it was ever going to get incorporated. What have you got left after his intervention - editors reluctant to state their views internally for fear of having their names and views displayed for public ridicule or worse, whether the fears are real or imagined the effect is the same. And gworld knew that was going to be the result when he chose to name names because it has happened before. I don't believe he is stupid which leaves the only conclusion as deliberate sabotage of an internal thread that could well have resulted in positive change once it got going properly with input from here.

I repeat no-one is criticising gworld for summarising that internal thread, not even orlady. They are criticising him on two scores - naming names against guidelines, and from my perspective and that of many others, for knowingly killing any chance of positive change arising from any suggestions in this thread.

 

So now you don't recall how the meaning was changed but you are sure and it is a fact that parts were omitted and meaning was changed because I am master of omitting key parts that changes the meaning and you are not insinuating this and we should accept it as a fact.

Do I really need to answer this?

 

The guidelines seem clear to me. ODP does not knowingly list child pornography.

 

It doesn't look to me as if there were much "debate" going on to begin with. I find your optimisim about DMOZ internal change and DMOZ internal discussions puzzling since you've said your previous frustration and pessimism was a prime reason for leaving.

But that aside, to me this is like the argument that we shouldn't be pointing out "bad things about DMOZ" publicly instead of reporting them to orlady. That just doesn't wash. What we are discussing in these threads is nothing new. What's new is that now some things are being done to rectify the situation and internal discussions at DMOZ can NOT take any credit for that. Anyone who believes that any of this would be happening without all the negative publicity generated here and in similar venues is living in a fantasy world.

And THAT is why I support gworld. There may well be times when he's a little off base and there are certainly times when I disagree with him or his strategies but the general theme of forcing DMOZ change through public scrutiny is one I fully support and endorse - because the history of that organization has demonstrated very clearly that it's the only way to initiate any substantive change.

 

But editors do.

That sounds an awful lot like "Guns don't (knowingly) kill people. People kill people (unknowingly or knowingly)".

 

Gworld, what was, I think, one of the first points I made? You have to define child pornography clearly and unambiguously for DMOZ purposes. Why? Because in countries like Portugal it is defined legally as photos of kids under 14. Is it defined in DMOZ as being photos of models under 18? Yes, hidden away in a cat description, which some editors do not intepret as being formally part of "guidelines". There are a couple of other oblique references elsewhere I found.

 

In this instance he will almost certainly have had the complete opposite effect not because he summarised an internal thread but the naming of names that stops the discussion that is needed to implement some positive changes. It is the way it works. He knew that so ask yourself why he did it if it wasn't to damage the possibility of some positive change.

From gworld's summary it looks like it had only just begun. These things take time for the arguments and points to develop into consensus.

It was a factor amongst several. What I have noticed over the last 5 months is actual progress being made on Adult issues whoever you credit for that. Slow progress but in the right direction - it seems there are more editors now willing to argue the points that previously they would have kept out of, and that Adult is being reformed. Naming names can only reverse the willingness of non-Adult editors to get involved, lobby, argue, achieve change. And it was done deliberately knowing that would be the effect, gworld is not stupid.

 

No, of course you don't have to answer this. I already told you I'm being distracted by a group of playful huskys jumping on me while I try to think, tpey and protect my laptop... I'm amazed I'm not making bigger mistakes.

And yes, you are a master. Take it as a compliment, you have to be pretty intelligent to do it as well as you do. Will you be my mentor?

 

In reality lmocr provided direct quote from that thread in DP by posting it here even before posting it in DMOZ.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=903126&postcount=81

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=903239&postcount=93

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=910146&postcount=137

So according to you, a person who decided to have the same name in this forum as her editor name and provides an exact quote of what she is going to post in internal forum, is concerned and her privacy is violated because I mentioned that this DP forum member has done, what she publicly announced she is going to do.

How did it kill any chance of positive change when there was no opinion expressed in support of the change? Shouldn't we be more concerned about protecting children than the so called "privacy" of those who want to keep such listings but want to do anonymously?

I am posting my previous question again and hopefully some editor would like to answer it, instead of just ignoring it.

 

Good question.
Another question: why isn't there any support for the change? Because a change (especially the one proposed here) would not keep further child pornography sites from being listed. Come up with a good rule (or guideline) that will keep child porn out of ODP, and I'm sure it will be added.

 

Allow me to clarify my earlier comment that "I'm done". I'm not going to advocate any other changes in Adult internally - because if I do gworld will publish what the other editors say. I'm not going to be responsible for initiating a conversation that should remain private - knowing full well that it won't.

 

I'm sorry, brizzie. In general, I hold you in high regard but this is nonsense. After the identification of pro-pedophilia sites in DMOZ, the internal discussion went on for weeks. Any reasonable person could see the solution immediately - excise those sites. Hell, even unreasonable people should have been able to see that. But what happened was about 60 days (give or take) of "internal debate" before there was any movement at all and even now the problem isn't "fixed". And while all that was happening, there were the usual pleas about ceasing all the negative publicity to give the DMOZ process time to do the right thing.

Cease the negative publicity and I will almost guarantee you that we can all come back here in about 6 months and find that nothing has changed and that the old (profitable) pro-pedophilia and pro-child-porn sites have somehow managed to sneak back in.

And, as I keep trying to say, this issue goes far beyond pro-pedophilia sites or child porn/questionable porn. Yes, this is an important part of the problem. But it is ONLY part of the problem. Some DMOZ editors cannot seem to understand that.

Gworld, I encourage you to continue to do what you're doing. History has shown that it has an impact. That same history has shown that DMOZ and their internal debates cannot be trusted to do anything to change the status quo without pressure from the outside.

 

I am sure there will a public outcry and people will start to stone to death any non-adult editor who will participate in those discussions and try to implement a guideline that stops child porn listings.

It is obvious and understandable for anyone, what a shame the editors will feel if it is publicly know that they are trying to stop child porn.

All non-adult editors do not participate in the discussion or fight for the change, you do not need the shame and embarrassment of people knowing that you are trying to do something good and decent.