DMOZ Scandal of the YEAR

Excuse me? Everyone knows what this particular case is all about. Everyone. The quotes above are a textbook case of metas making it look like Annie did something really sinister, dark, dreadful, abominable, wicked and corrupt, that warranted her dismissal without so much of a "Happy Trails To You" before shutting the door on her face. But with this dismissal, no one will give the ODP the benefit of the doubt. Everyone will stand for Annie. You can't pull the wool over everybody's eyes, all the time. This era is over.

You mercilessly marked her with the scarlet letter of "corrupt ex-editor" and behind her back, you are adding insult to injury. Shame on you.

 

All Time Favorites

And Now what is this ROBOZUKI that you are HIDING. An additional paranoia that only higher rank editors gets to stop the SUBMISSIONS at the ODP with NOTES. So that FOOT SOLDIERS not seeing the FILTERS just have to work. WOW !!

 

Wohooo i am not an editor on dmoz lasted politics for only 2 - 3 days, darn annie survived that long in that corrupt cult of ignorant bitch(u all know who i am referring to) is kinda a miracle. But if bad things happen to good people, trust me even worse things can happen to bad people , with time bitches die ofcourse and no one is there by their bedside when they are about to go to hell.

So, time will tell the future of this particular bitch(whose name i will not disclose as you all know it already). But hey she aint got a life at all, so what do we all expect? Aol really needs to start screening people if they have a life at all first before making them metas. Cause those without a life i doubt can function properly.

Ok enough with my ranting go on folks this is interesting thread.

 

I was being sarcastic, sweet stuff. "Happy trails to you" has become my sarcastic anthem for the day. I hope you don't mind me borrowing it.

 

If they are having to dismiss so many people, maybe they are trying to start fresh or something, or maybe the whole model is flawed, and the firings will go on for a long time. They certainly get bashed a lot, but I have seen some improvements in the last several months in the quality of the directory itself.

I'm not fan by any means, because I too was dismissed, and was not given a reason, or any sense of appreciation for the time I spent trying to help them.

 

Excuse me David you are out of the thread this is not PHPLD. No business to get here.
Do you want to be next in line of my sweetness ? Please let me know and I'll be glad to lead the way since you know I am avoiding any shotput against you.

 

This is not a joke. Popo, who has access to the ODP forum, told me a story about an old ODP editor who posted an explanation as to why he hasn't been very active. He said it was because he is homeless, and has been living out of this car for the past five years. Some sympathetic editor apparently asked the poor homeless editor what make of car he was living out of!!! Nice. Very sensitive and appropriate question.

This to say that a lot of editors and prestigious metas might be perhaps a little better off that this homeless peon, say, living in a trailer, or even a double-wide, editing all day, and collecting disability payment for debilitating anti-social personality disorders. But I don't want to paint all editors with the same brush, I am sure some of them do have jobs and live in houses without wheels.

 

Instead of just discussing the corruption and abuse in this forum, why not bring it to the place that hurts even more for corrupt Admins and Metas, namely: Wikipedia

There is a page about DMOZ and the corruption and abuse in DMOZ are briefly mentioned and they are asking for citation in the article but the problem is that as soon as someone adds an example or citation for different cases, it is removed by orlady and other "honest" editors.

Join wikipedia, give examples and citation and file complains against orlady and others if they remove your text for censoring the content.

Let's make everyone aware of how bad the situation is in DMOZ.

Link to DMOZ page in Wikipedia

Link to see the history and who censors your additions

 

@helleborine i wasnt talking about bank balance hello.... "Getting a life" or "having no life" is i think a metaphor of some sort. Even the richest person out there could have no life, example maybe like Bill gates?

@Gworld i was the first one to ever post -ve on wiki and was removed like in less than an hour. So think again. No use posting there, as Orlady will take care of that pretty quick....

 

Sure why not gworld and if anyone wants the full text of the morons at inner forum I will be very happy to provide just for references.

@Qryztufre
Your just one of the few who really stands up.

 

And that is the reason for second part of my post: FILE COMPLAIN WITH WIKIPEDIA AGAINST "HONEST" EDITORS CENSORING THE CONTENT.

 

Hey filing anything anywhere would get nothing, unless you know someone working for aol personally, its all just waste of time.

Lookie found the history of what i posted

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Directory_Project&oldid=117637401

Read the Editor removal procedures lol I used the word Grudge too

Basically this area

This statement is not true, what you see on the deactivated login page is a list of possible reasons which is a copy and paste for every editor removed, with the following text at the bottom "We do not disclose the specific details of login removals. However, the decision to deactivate your login was made by consensus of the meta community, and thoroughly reviewed by DMOZ staff to ensure that our decision was appropriate and warranted." The AOL Staff is not involved in the procedure either at all, its only those meta editors that have a grudge against an editor make sure that editor is removed. AOL staff intervention is required as currently dmoz is filled with meta editors who serve their own selfish interests and are not taking care of Dmoz as AOL would have wanted them to do.

PHP:

 

Like everything relating to the ODP, the graph is hopelessly out of date. It shows the ODP on the upswing - but the graph on the Wiki stops in 2004.

This one from Alexa is a lot more revealing:

http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?o=l&c=1&f=555555&u=dmoz.org/&u=&u=&u=&u=&r=3y&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=610

 

Oh thats cause i stopped visiting dmoz at that time

 

I believe a large chunk of that graph is editor traffic and activity.

 

Once, I worked for a boss whom I saw abuse another employee. That other employee was a very good scientist, very hard working, but he was not a native English-speaker. The boss got tired of fixing the grammar in his written reports, so he started to insult and humiliate him in meetings, until the poor guy left on his own accord. Once he was gone, I became the next one to be harassed, because we didn't get many contracts for the test I was supervising. During my turn being treated badly, I shared an office with a newer employee, Wendy. When Wendy saw what was going on, two weeks after she started, she began calling her old boss to get her old boss back, and she left before I did. Her reason: "With people like him, no one is spared. When you're gone, I am going to be next."

The morale of the story is this. There are editors at the ODP busying themselves sucking up and swallowing their pride for brownie points. They think that because they haven't been hit by lightning, they are immune to shock. Trust me. Wendy is right. YOU're next. If you see people around you being mistreated, you're next. Always remember this.

You might think you have enough categories. You might think you have devoted enough hours and years to the ODP. You might think to you have enough friends, and enough love-capital. You might think you might be able to dodge bullets, Matrix-style, and never make a single dodgy edit.

But there is no such thing as being too valuable to the ODP to kick you out, unceremoniously, over a SINGLE iffy edit. Not even downright corrupt, clearly evil, obviously tainted, just a bit "iffy" is enough for you to be tossed to the curb with all the other racketeering ex-editors. And you'll never be given the chance to explain it if you made an error.

 

What now martty. Any comment from you here ; I also saw your post there in internal forum and thats also VERY HUMANE . How about ROBOZUKI want to know more about that.

 

Why does DMOZ reminds me of the French Revolutions with heads rolling all over the place... in the end once they run out of editors metas will turn on each other - THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

 

You can always send report to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COIN

I don't know if any meta is admin on Wiki but I doubt it since it takes lot of hard work to become one.

BTW it seems Orlady started doing some real editing on wikipedia only after DMOZ crash
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Orlady&site=en.wikipedia.org

Not necessarily, wikipedia article is no. 3 for keyword DMOZ and no. 4 Open Directory Project so many would read it.

We need some reliable third party source which can be referenced in wiki article otherwise will have bunch of anonymous IP's constantly deleting anything we write... I translated my Croatian text into English but if I write anything in ODP articles then I can be charged for COI.

 

Yep. They are like vultures fighting for their spot in the pecking order for the privilege of scraping that last bit of carrion off the bones of the dead giant lizard.

I love how the removal system works.

(1) A bunch of scheming heartless metas decide who'll next be dragged to the sacrificial altar. Personal vendettas welcome. It is rumored that metas rarely agree. This is true. "Kill my enemy" "No crucify mine!" "But my enemy is a worse fiend!"

(2) The chosen victim is not forwarned. Banishment is instant for maximum pain. You don't want to ease the victim out of its pointless addiction to editing, because the victim might realize that it was wasting its time all along, and time is the most precious thing we have. No, you want the poor thing to go cold turkey, and watch gleefully for shakes, fevers, nausea and delirium tremens to develop. It's more fun that way!

(3) No appeal! No explanation! That's the fun sadistic part.

(4) Add insult to injury. While the victim is shaking from withdrawal, let's make it look like the victim was a perfidious, profiteering, debauched, foul and venal editor, by refusing to explain, and keeping to the mantra that the dismissal was richly justified. Invoke the necessary secrecy of the process, and the importance of protecting metas against harassment. Yes, the victim must suffer, but the metas must be coddled! If anyone objects to the removal, you can conveniently say that the complainers don't know the details, that it was, aw shucks, such a hard painful decision.

(5) Keep a tally of the peon editors that protest the dismissal, for future victimization. Also keep a tally of those that shout "praise be to the great metas" to randomly smite one of those too, so that everyone knows who's boss.

(6) For years to come, poo-poo the dismissed editor as corrupt, and disgruntled, in the hope that the victim's voice will not be heard outside the walls of the ODP either, or be tainted with the suspicions of "corruption."

(7) Continue to waste your life visiting websites, writing sterile descriptions, looking out for mirrors, spam, etc, for a directory that no one uses, or will use again. The mother of all link farms, as if that was worth something. So... so most of your victims are out there utilizing their precious time for more rewarding, more intelligent, more challenging, and perhaps more financially viable activities. But why think about such things, we you can focus on the next victim!