Application of 2257 to the ODP

Don't say whatever, explain what does DMOZ mean by illegal sites when there is no jurisdiction to judge legality or illegality of the site?

Tell us why in the area of light drugs the American laws are enforced on European jurisdiction but when it comes to child porn the same concept or even holding them to any laws is impossible?

 

gworld, your shoes are untied.

 

I refer you to one of my previous answers to the same question. Or make up your own answer based on all editors being corrupt porn peddlers as you usually do. Take your pick. Then answer my question on how you expect editors to know 200 penal codes. When you've done that perhaps we can get back to guidelines on preventing child pornography sites being listed that don't involve contentious legal technicalities with no chance of being adopted.

No idea as to the accuracy of the first part of the question so unable to comment on the second.

 

Are they???

 

Just a quick look tells me US laws are not applied in the area of light drugs. I live in the US so I'm not supposed to list those sites, but other editors can.

 

How about avoiding the second part by addressing the first?

Short-term practical suggestion for easing pain of reviewers:

BT blocks access to illegal sites through Clean Feed. If the site is blocked, it is illegal (apparently the site is reported as unavailable). This would be a painless method of weeding out those sites known to the authorities (UK at least) to be illegal.

Is it possible that the sites in the relevant area can be checked by British members of the ODP community that use BT for hosting?

Possible long-term suggestion:

AOL (UK) is a member of the International Watch Foundation which maintains a database of illegal urls - this list is accessible to its members. Is it possible for the ODP to obtain that list and make a 'private' area with them in it but all automatically marked 'do not list – illegal site' so if an editor goes to review one they get told it's illegal?

Rationale - guidelines refer to external organization responsible for policing these types of site.

Example chosen UK-based as it came up in the News - what's the state of play worldwide (assume IWF is maintaining worldwide database of sites?).

Proposal (cynical) - no big organisation is willing to spend money without some return. ODP doesn't seem to get much from AOL but AOL has a policy team on this issue (BBC BT article).

ODP is biggest directory on net and entries multiply outward and should be involved/considered in AOL policy but money/resources might be needed (extract urls from database, mark them and keep it up to date).

People in ODP need plan of implementation to push to AOL dept dealing with these things with publicity payback for AOL.

Sorry for English, tired and do not agree on wording

WearewhoWeare

 

http://www.dmoz.org/add.html

libel accroding to what jurisdiction? There are different different definitions of libel in different countries.

How about intellectual property right?

"What copyright protection exists internationally? There is no "international copyright;" the laws of individual countries govern. Happily, most countries have signed treaties giving copyright protection to non-citizens, agreeing to enforce each others' copyright laws, and providing an enforcement mechanism. "

http://www.lawandfiction.com/law/column.4.html

How about illegal activity?

In some countries, such as Portugal, cannabis drug material is legal for personal use, though restrictions do apply to its sale, distribution or consumption, and the legal limit is 25g. In many countries the consumption of cannabis is legal although it is illegal to possess, sell or distribute it or allow others to consume it on one's property. If the amount of cannabis a person possessed is considered as "minor", charges may be dropped. In the U.S.A (nationwide, in 2004) a person is arrested on "marijuana charges" every 42 seconds, on average. Most other countries have very strict laws against even the possession or consumption of cannabis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_of_cannabis

 

But you can't charge someone living outside the country right?

 

Well living in the Uk I can't see how that would ever happen to me since I've never been there.

Or can I ?

 

Then change the guidelines. That's what I'm suggesting. I'm not surprised you missed that.

(1) actually you can, but (2) I'm not talking about US guidelines - you and gworld are.

Correct.

I'm relieved to hear that.

I am helping. You are hindering through ignorance. I'm not surprised you're confused about this, though. And I don't have to dream up insults about you, lmocr - you hand them to people on a platter.

Speaking of hindering...

 

Gworld:

Libel - what this means is that if a site has been deemed libellous by the appropriate legal authorities and someone provides information to DMOZ of that court ruling then DMOZ will immediately remove it. Editors are not expected to make that judgement but will follow a court ruling once it is pointed out to them. Ditto for IPA rulings.

Illegal activity - some crimes are universal - fraud, violence, child pornography. But you can see from the pro-pedophile chat rooms that when it comes to whether a site abets illegal activity there is not always consensus, free-speechers have their own (misguided IMO) views. Hence the need in that instance to eventually ban material of prurient interest to pedophiles specifically. What this clause does is allow removal of sites per libel cases etc. But also it would allow a site to be removed if the removing editor had greater knowledge of the law. For example a Canadian editor might add a UK site telling people where to purchase guns - gun shops in the UK are illegal - a UK editor may remove the site on those grounds. Neither editor would be criticised.

So the guidelines on illegal sites have their uses but are generally used after the listing event and for the purposes of removing sites, not primarily as a test in the original listing of a site. They have proven, through the pro-pedophile chat rooms issue, to be weak in the absence of more specific rulings. It is highly unlikely you could base an editor abuse case on them except in the most extreme examples. And finally, referring to the case of the jailed Turkish editor who listed pro-Kurdish sites, there are times DMOZ deliberately flouts national laws by listing sites courts have deemed illegal. The Turkish editor shouldn't have listed the sites - it got him jail time - but other editors would have done it for him had he asked. So where there is an intention to create a universal prohibition on a class of sites it must be specified in separate guidelines quite precisely and in a way that makes it clear that breach is a disciplinary offence not a matter of free speech or opinion as to legality.

 

Any list of URLs can be inserted into a tool used by editalls and above and mass red-noted to prohibit their listing. It is a very simple matter. An excellent suggestion iamwhoiam.

 

That rule is there to prevent corrupt editors from removing their competitors on spurious or even no grounds at all. And provides just cause for editor removals. Instead of changing that guideline you put in place other guidelines that specify valid site removal reasons. Generally these are quite broad and give editors a large degree of discretion. I've listed sites others have rejected and removed sites others have approved. But you always always always state your reasons and are accountable for them. In the case of the pro-pedophile chat rooms I would simply have removed them and noted the Staff ruling as the reason - no-one would have batted an eyelid and the decision would not have been challenged. Once it goes into forum and it gets debated then you have to wait for a group decision, which is why sid hit a little problem.

 

In this particular case I believe it would have been appropriate to unreview the pro-pedophile chat rooms first and then start a discussion about what to do with them, IF they weren't already being discussed. But brizzie is 100% correct that we must leave listings alone that are already being discussed. There's no way around it.

It would be a terrible mistake to loosen the policy regarding deletions. Although it may seem counterproductive in certain cases dmoz couldn't function without that rule. We rely on it prevent abuse and to catch it when it happens. We must give a reason for every single deletion, and the system won't allow a deletion if we forget to record the reason. Of course it's possible to lie about your reason, but then the editor leaves a trail that can be caught if someone files an abuse report or if another editor takes a close look at that editor's logs. It happens all the time.

Normally when an editor is vocal in either a positive or negative way, or otherwise calls attention to him/herself other editors will check that editor's logs to see what they've been up to, where they edit, and basically get familiar with their work. Sometimes during that process we'll see something that doesn't look right and dig deeper. Sometimes we ask questions, occasionally we don't need to ask questions becuase it becomes clear that the editor is doing wrong. Then we file an abuse report and they really are taken seriously.

Editors are removed for inappropriate deletions, it's considered abuse. We always say an editor cannot control a category and it's true in part because we can't delete without reason. Without that rule in place an editor really could control a category and keep his competition out. With the current guidelines, that can never happen unless the editor abuses his position, and if he does he will be removed when found out. This is why so many removed editors believe the reason they were removed was for speaking out. They weren't removed for speaking out, but it's likely that it was the speaking out that caused others to look at their logs, then if they've been doing something wrong they get caught.

IMO you can count on the fact that editors who don't hide who they are and openly discuss issues are checked out by other editors and have been found to be honest. They have no agenda and nothing to hide, they should be listend to even if you don't like them. You can be sure that just from posting in this forum alone a lot of editors have looked at my logs, as well as those of lmocr, sidjf, macdesign, jjwill, fathom, gboisseau, ishfish, pagode, vulcano or any of the other editors who participate in this forum. It doesn't make sense to believe they're anything less than honest or they'd be ex-editors by now. We have our guidelines to thank for that, even the one that says we can't delete without good reason.

 

Is this the reason no more than a handful get involved in internal discussions?

 

Is this the reason gworld doesn't get involved in internal discussions?

 

Actually I do but my editor name is not gworld. But in internal forum you don't want to commit the crime of being too smart and show you understand what is happening.

 

You're twisting what I said, but you already know that. Way more than a handful get involved in internal and external discussions. Most of the editors who don't get involved in discussions are good honest people too. In my experience the most vocal editors, those who are open about their editor names, have nothing to hide. But there are always exceptions.

Back to the topic... We need a valid reason to delete, and that's a good thing.

 

I am just pulling your leg Annie.

But on a serious note, if you look at the internal forum, you can notice the problems with the whole editor program. The number involved in any serious discussion is not more than a handful and you know it. I think the most popular threads just now are the editors photo contest and what alcohol has improved your day that has little bit more participation. Compare the list of participant in forum to the list of senior editors, you will notice many senior editors that have not participated for months or years.

Why people don't care and don't participate? is it because it won't make any difference?

 

So I am right. Gworld doesn't get involved.