Self-mutilation rampant at 2 Ivy League schools Survey: 17 percent at Cornell and Princeton purposely cut themselves ................... Separate research found more than 400 Web sites devoted to subject, including many that glorify self-injury. Some worry that many sites serve as an online subculture that fuels the behavior — although whether there has been an increase in the practice or just more awareness is unclear. Sarah Rodey, 20, a University of Illinois student who started cutting herself at age 16, said some online sites help socially isolated kids feel like they belong. One of her favorites includes graphic photographs that the site warns might be “triggering.†“I saw myself in some of those pictures, in the poems. And because I saw myself there, I wanted to connect to it better†by self-injuring, Rodey said. ................... Repeat self-abusers were more likely than non-injurers to be female and to have had eating disorders or suicidal tendencies, although self-injuring is usually not considered a suicide attempt. .............................. He said one school recently reported several fourth-graders with burns on their arms, and another seeking help for “15 hysterical seventh-grade girls in the office and they all have cuts on their arms.†In those situations, Lieberman said there’s usually one instigator whose behavior is copied by sympathetic but probably less troubled friends. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13141254/?GT1=8211
And they ALL found it through DMOZ It sucks, but come on, be realistic This is turning in to a blind vendetta.
Are you saying that NOBODY finds ANYTHING through DMOZ? Even if that was true, DMOZ is helping such sites by giving them links and improving their SERP.
You are utterly and totally missing the point, SVZ. READ the notes gworld posted. These are for the most part vulnerable and impressionable people, many of them quite young. A socially responsible person or organization doesn't go out of their way to endorse, promote, and make these sites easier for people to find. A socially responsible person or organization would be trying to find ways to help these people - not exploit them further. Have you ever known a cutter or someone with anorexia or bulimia? We're not talking about the occasional underage beer or the occasional joint here, you know. We're talking about practices which are seriously damaging both physically and psychologically and which result in numerous deaths every year.
ban To prohibit, especially by official decree. promotion The act of promoting or the fact of being promoted; advancement. Encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something; furtherance. Advertising; publicity. There is a big difference between ban and promotion.
Yes. I have known all three behaviors (sometimes all three in the same person). These behaviors are very scary and upsetting to see. They are symptoms of a troubled mind. Some unhappy teenagers drink, some use drugs, some are promiscuous, some cut on themselves, some starve themselves, some overeat, some become exercise addicts, some hide away from the world, some sniff solvents or other inhalants, some manage to kill themselves, some see psychiatrists who prescribe psychiatric drugs... These behaviors existed long before the Internet. I am far more aware of these behaviors now than I was several decades ago, but I know they existed back then -- we were just less aware of these things back then. (Sometimes we became aware after it was too late. I never heard of bulimia until a girl I knew slightly died from it. ) Yes, teens are far more aware of this stuff now than you and I were when we were their age. That increased awareness doubtless increases the incidence of some of these scary behaviors. However, greater awareness also increases the chance that parents, teachers, counselors, and other teens will recognize the symptoms of these behaviors and get help for a person who is doing this stuff. If you want to rant about social ills, rant away! There's plenty to rant about. Just please don't blame all the ills of the world on DMOZ. If DMOZ were to refuse to list websites about any topics other than guardian angels and Barney the Dinosaur, the change would not make one whit of difference in the incidence of anorexia and self-harm among teenagers.
They are FAR more prevalent today than even 10 years ago and they are hitting younger and younger children - children as young as 10, 8, 7. Even if that weren't true, how does the fact that it was a problem 20 years ago justify promoting and endorsing those sites in a directory like DMOZ? How the heck do you so consistently manage to totally miss the point? We are talking about practices that KILL vulnerable people! If we accept the argument you propose here, why did you allow the removal of pro-pedophilia sites? Why didn't you argue there that raising awareness helps kids and parents avoid child rape? Your argument makes no more sense here than there. And then we get the "extension to absurdity hoping to nullify the complaint" ruse: You are wrong. Purely and simply wrong. You are arguing out of almost total abysmal ignorance on this one, orlady. And it's also a red herring: The point is not that I am blaming all the ills of the world on DMOZ, or that I am asking DMOZ to eradicate self-injury, eating disorders, and suicide, any more than I am asking DMOZ to eradicate drug abuse. What I am asking is THAT DMOZ STOP ENDORSING, PROMOTING, AND ENCOURAGING ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICES THAT HARM AND KILL VULNERABLE PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY OUR CHILDREN. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? It's a pretty damn simple concept!
DMOZ does not endorse the sites that it lists. If that isn't clear then it should be made clear. DMOZ does not promote sites, it categorises them and describes their content. Akin to an index in a library. As has been said here many times the weight given by search engines to DMOZ listings is marginal at most. The promotional effect comes from search engines and it is their practices that should be targetted in that respect. Promotion of eating orders is clearly related to the advertising industry and their use of twigs as models. Editors exercise their own choice in listing such sites - most editors would not list such sites but it is a matter for individual conscience. It does not force nor encourage these sites to be listed by editors which is a far more responsible position than those of search engines who list indiscriminately. DMOZ does not encourage anyone to do anything through the act of categorising a website. Again if that is not clear then it should be made clear. Gworld's post illustrates an appalling situation but it is in no way related to DMOZ. DMOZ banning such sites does not make any difference at all to that. If Internet information on the subject is a factor it is for professional associations to lobby governments to prohibit them and parents to close them down by suing the owners for damages. I am sorry for these victims, I am sorry that governments are not doing more, I am sorry that advertising agencies and big corporations use skinny models and sell fashionable clothes that only fit beanstalks. I am sorry that some editors think it is OK to list sites that encourage these practices - they are misguided. I am not sorry that DMOZ does not have an institutional ban on these sites as it is the thin edge of a mighty big wedge. Poor nutrition kills kids and it is only a matter of time ... There are two things I would support - health warnings to clarify that DMOZ does not endorse such sites coupled with advice to seek counselling; and an appeal to editors to think very carefully about the issues and impact of listing such sites before doing so - not a guideline, not a ban, but think very carefully before you decide to list a site with emphasis on: Can you see which person or entity is responsible for it? Does it give enough information about the source for a user to judge its reliability? While we cannot assess the accuracy of every site we list, we can select sites which give verifiable information. For example, the site of a trustworthy business or organization typically displays its official name and address, or includes industry-appropriate information about itself verifiable through a recognized third party. A trustworthy informational site typically gives its authorship and/or sources, as appropriate, and makes clear any commercial sponsorship. The information necessary to verify a site's trustworthiness will vary depending upon the topic and the category. Remember, no site is guaranteed a listing in the Open Directory, and we depend on editors to use their own discretion. In short, we ask that editors maintain editorial integrity, keep the ODP's broader goals and mission in mind, and always employ good common sense. Editors do not have the right to reject a site that meets listing criteria regardless of (legal) content. But they do have a right not to review or list a site that they have personal objections to. If they object to such sites then they should be encouraged to exercise that right. Personally I think you would get far further with reasoned appeals to editor consciences and common sense than a hard hitting campaign of exposure on this issue in an attempt to get a ban that will never happen. And the first person to trot out that editors have no consciences and no common sense can pat themselves on the back that they have just alienated some more editors enough for them to ignore the appeal.
If anybody like to sue some one, AOL makes a much better defendant than an small web site with no financial means, if they can show that their children death or self mutilation was the result of coming in contact with such web sites through DMOZ. The law only protects the Internet carriers in regard to information passing through the network (which was used by AOL to avoid responsibility for a child was molested through a contact in their chat room) and not in such cases as DMOZ were the sites are listed on their server and AOL is an active participant. The existence of such threads and others like it is also clear proof that AOL was aware of the dangers but willingly decided to ignore it which makes them responsible by negligence. May be finally AOL will learn a lesson about social responsibility after they are forced to pay millions in damages to families of these children.
brizzie, I do respect you and so I must assume you believe what you have written here. But I must say it's an alarmingly naive belief. 1. A site as large as DMOZ IS going to be seen as something of an authority. Therefore, whether you like it or not, unless DMOZ becomes a directory which accepts ALL sites submitted to it, the assumption will be that any sites listed have gone through some sort of selection process and, human psychology being what it is, this will further imply that DMOZ approves of and endorses the sites it lists. You may be able to limit legal liability by the use of apporpriate disclaimers, as I do on my sites, but do not fool yourself that you are removing the problem that way. As I have said many times, only a small part of this is a legal issue or a liability issue. 2. By listing a site in DMOZ, as has been pointed out repeatedly, you do provide backlink(s) to that site which help to increase it's visibility in search engines, again whether you like it or not. By doing so, DMOZ most certainly IS helping to promote that site, again whether you like it or not. If you (the generic you) are an editor and do not understand this, you are a potential danger and part of the problem, as I have also previously stated. I haven't seen any evidence that "reasoned appeals" work. I have seen some evidence that a campaign of exposure that embarrasses DMOZ and AOL and provokes angry responses from people previously unaware of DMOZ practices CAN have some effect. I will therefore leave the "reasoned appeals to editors" in your hands (although again as I recall the failure of that approach was one of the reasons you "retired" from DMOZ) and I fully intend to continue my campaign my way. Addendum In spite of the claims of certain editors and others, I am not out to destroy DMOZ. My personal opinion is that it will eventually do that all on its own but in the meantime I don't have a problem with it continuing to exist. Furthermore, I highly doubt that there's anything I or anyone else can do to destroy DMOZ -- consequently, I think we have to live with the fact that it will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. I do have a problem with some DMOZ policies and the implications and consequences of those policies and THAT is what I am fighting against.
When the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. This is from Time Warner web site: Time Warner Honors Employees' Outstanding Volunteer Achievements with 25th Annual Andrew Heiskell Community Service Awards June 07, 2006 Time Warner Inc. today celebrated the 25th anniversary of its annual Andrew Heiskell Community Service Awards, which highlight the exceptional volunteer efforts of its employees................................. Time Warner is also presenting a Community Service Team Award to recognize a group of employees that exemplifies Time Warner’s values of responsibility and teamwork. The 2006 Community Service Team Award is being presented to Time Warner Cable’s (Los Angeles division) VolunTEAM Committee, which performs community service activities for a wide variety of nonprofit organizations in Southern California. http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1201581,00.html I wonder how do they combine this kind of work and Time Warner’s values of responsibility with DMOZ actions of promoting web sites that encourage suicide, self mutilation, anorexia and who knows what else.
I accept and agree that this is the perception regardless of whether it is intended or not. DMOZ does claim to list "quality" sites and discard the rest. In making such a statement it is DMOZ's fault if it is perceived as endorsing the sites it lists. It is only through forums such as this that it is made clear that DMOZ does not endorse the contents of the sites it lists and that is not sufficient. I am not referring just to the sort of sites this discussion has turned to but the whole spectrum, including Shopping sites that might be scams, gambling sites that leave people in debt, sites offering medical advice that turns out to be irresponsible or incorrect, tobacco, you name it. A DMOZ listing is a symbol of quality. Now the listing criteria have changed and without having seen or participated in the reasoning behind this it is pure guesswork but I would see the "trustworthyness" guideline as being a further move toward implied endorsement. In the circumstances I do think it important that DMOZ makes it clear, perhaps on every page, that it explicitely does not endorse the content of listed sites, not just a vague disclaimer in small print somewhere in the help pages. And where appropriate, goes further in some categories, e.g. advice to seek professional counselling. With the greatest of respect minstrel I don't see much evidence it has been tried. I do see evidence of insults and false allegation levelled against editors continuously. Sometimes there are legitimate complaints and it is to the credit of some editors who post here that they are willing to wade through the crap and suffer the insults, pick up the legitimate stuff, and try and do something about it. It is your choice of course but personally I don't think these particular issues will embarrass DMOZ or AOL. The difference is in legal basis - sites that promote illegal activity and sites that don't. I also think that going for the jugular is counter-productive in this instance in that editors will see the anti-DMOZ message and not the anti-self harming message. I think I went into a wide-ranging number of Adult issues like a bull in a china shop. That opened the discussion and generated some heat and interest by editors who would normally have passed on by. But there came a point when I felt my continued participation was becoming completely counter-productive by polarising positions and that others with a gentler approach would be more effective. And that determined the timing of my "retirement" though not the cause. I think you may be in danger of doing the same thing on these other sites which you are rightly concerned about - you've opened the issue, turned up the heat, and perhaps it is time for gentle persuasion rather than outright assault.
Well, It shouldn't after the selection we have seen in these threads. What is the purpose of DMOZ as a directory in your opinion? Obviously it is not to list quality sites or having a social responsibility in listing sites.
You are still missing the point, or part of it. The problem does not exist because "DMOZ does claim to list 'quality' sites and discard the rest". It exists because ANY site that is selective in it's inclusion criteria is seen to be endorsing the sites that are listed. Even on my relatively small mental health sites, I have had fequent reminders or confirmations of that aspect of human psychology over the years, in the form of comments from visitors.
That is your problem, you should adopt DMOZ method for listing sites and only list sites that you don't think are quality sites and also you totally disagree with the contents on those sites. The only way to change anything in DMOZ for better is through marketing and legal departments of AOL and Time warner.
I realize that was intended humorously, gworld, but just to clarify it for anyone else it is neither a DMOZ problem nor a problem with my sites. It is a general problem of any and all sites that attempt to be selective in listing links to other sites and resources on the internet (or indeed off the internet - the same would be true of books or other resources). This is basic internet psychology. The ONLY way for DMOZ or anyone else to even partially avoid this problem would be to make sure it was loudly and clearly stated that it was a free-for-all site and that ALL sites submiitted were accepted without any review or selection process whatsoever. Since I doubt that DMOZ or most other directories are ever going to want to do that, we're "stuck" with accepting responsibility for what we do list, whether we like it or not.
I'm not disagreeing, we're on the same wavelength on that point and it is a fair comment. The answer to that is a clear and unequivokable statement indicating lack of endorsement if that is what is intended (and that is what is intended unless things have changed in the last 6 months).