DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Nowhere in my statement above did I insinuate that I personally approve of the use of DMOZ to promote and endorse pronography, yet you claim that's what I said. The only thing I said in that quote is that, IMO, listing pornography meets the goals of the ODP. That doesn't mean that I approve of it (or that I don't).

 

I agree - I don't like RZ either, and as far as I can remember, have never posted there. In fact, I don't normally follow these types of threads or forums at all. This one just caught my attention.

 

An example of the bullshit and baflegab I mentioned, sidjf:

You are defending the policy, are you not? You are stating that you feel the policy is consistent with the goals of DMOZ, are you not?

Are you now saying that you disagree with the goals or policies? And if so, does that not make it rather hyporcritical of you to defend them?

 

No, that's not what I said at all. There is no secret meaning in my words - take them at face value.

I said that having an Adult category (and listing porn sites) is consistant with the stated ODP goals. No more, no less. You are trying to add more meaning to my words than are there. I am not stating whether I agree with the policy of listing adult sites, or whether I disagree. I am just saying that, in my opinion, an Adult category is consistant with the ODP goals that you quoted to me. You are more than welcome to disagree with my opinion, but please don't say that I am saying things that I am not saying. That's all I am asking of you.

Again, I am not defending the policy, nor am I stating that I am against it. I am also not agreeing or disagreeing with the goals or policies. I am ONLY giving you MY interpretation of what those goals and policies are - nothing more.

You repeatedly claiming that I said something that I did not say, will not make it true. I didn't say it.

 

OK, sidjf. Enough with your interpretation of the policies and guidelines. As an editor, I would love to hear your opinions on what changes, if any, you would make regarding the Adult cate in DMOZ. Let's hypothetically promote you to DMOZ super-duper-edit-everything.

 

Ohh, that's an excellent question. It will require a bit of thought though. Do I get to pretend I have unlimited editor resources (in other words, is this a "if I could have it any way I wanted it" question, or is it that everything is just the same except that I am surpreme overlord of Adult)?

 

You are the ruler of everything DMOZ!!!

 

You have mentioned that having an adult category is consistent with the stated ODP goals? Well the question will be according to who? Brizzie who was a former editall states that according to him is not consistent. Some of DMOZ editor who has given me green rep in this thread (yes miracles happens) do not agree with that. I can hardly imagine that general public will agree with that and certainly users on DP do not agree with that.

You answer my question in the next paragraph:
"I am ONLY giving you MY interpretation of what those goals and policies are"

What makes your interpretation and few others that you are well aware of more important than many others who volunteer in DMOZ? What is the structure in DMOZ that can bring such issues that influence the reputation of the whole community to the members and let them decide the outcome? I am sure that you will mention the heated arguments in DMOZ but how many really take part in those discussions or are aware of it? What is the mechanism that can finally force the organization to an action, if a group of higher editors decide to drag the discussion for ever? How many people would dare to disagree with higher editors or engage in a heated discussion when their edit privilege can be revoked? What happens if your interpretation is based on your personal interest and you think that listing of certain sexual act is fine because you find those acts fascinating. It is not unusual for child molester (I am not implying that you are) to believe in their mind that they are really in love with their victim and they are helping them to become a man. What happens if such a person becomes administrator and decides that listing sites to attract children for the pedophiles is in line with DMOZ policy because there is nothing wrong with being pedophile according to his interpretation?

The problem with the structure of DMOZ is there is no real organization or chain of command which makes it very easy for a few individuals that are placed in the right position to take control of the whole organization. What makes it worse is that because the actions of the few who can be there for profit or other reasons does not influence the majority of little editors who are busy with their own little category and happy to be the member of the club while totally unaware of what is happening.

This is the just part of the structural problem in DMOZ and after you have answered that we can discuss the social and legal responsibilities that any individual, company or organization have and how DMOZ actions are conflict with social and legal accepted norms.

 

Ok, well, if I had unlimited editor resources (more editors in other words), I would move most of Adult out of the live directory and then re-review each site to make sure that it met the guidelines below. I would have to have enough editors to make that happen within one or two weeks though, and that is pure dreaming.

In reality, I would implement the guidelines below and then make an attempt at systematically going through Adult and checking sites to make sure they comply. But this would take time obviously.

Changes I would make (and why):

Personally, in a perfect world, I believe that there should be little restriction on the internet, on TV, or anywhere else. people should be left to make their own decisions and to safegaurd their own children (personal responsibility in other words). This is not a perfect world though, and the choices a person or company makes can affect how they are viewed by others (and their value to society).

1) Adult should ideally follow the guidelines of the rest of the ODP more closely, with a general rule of thumb of 1 or 2 listings per site. This would have to very carefully be thought through before being implemented though.

Many (maybe most) adult sites are not set up to have a central location that lists all of their content, so often times there isn't just one page to list - hence the use of massive deeplinking in Adult.

The obvious arguement here is "so what?". My question is, should the ODP adjust to the web (listing lots of deeplinks in Adult), or should the web adjust to the ODP (if you want a listing in Adult, link to all of your content from one place)? Honestly, I don't have an answer to this. What do you guys think (think through your answers as they could have far reaching implications)?

2) Adult should not list things that are highly controversial or are illegal in most places in the World. This includes, obviously child pornography of any kind (written and textual), but also beastiality, and incest (and probably others that I am not thinking of right now). Personally, I'd like to get rid of the Death and Gore cat and hardcore BDSM, but only because I personally find that stuff revolting. I'm not sure if this would be a good rule for the ODP though...would definitely be on my watch list.

3) Find a group of metas ("Adult" metas as well as "non-adult") who will volunteer to spend a large portion of their editing time watching the regular Adult editors and then start accepting applications like mad (only exclude the obvious abusers). Many of them will be weeded out (hence the group of metas to watch them), but hopefully we could get a big boost in editors, thereby creating a larger base to evaluate and re-evaluate sites.

I think we should be accepting more editors in other areas as well - but I'm not a meta and don't have all of the information, so my opinion is admittedly underinformed on this.

4) Harness the power of places like this! Get special threads set up on these types of forums where people can just report problems they find (much like this thread started), and then follow up on them (another job for the group of metas perhaps).

I'm sure I will think of more later, but that about sums up my thoughts on what I would like to see happen in Adult. Some of it would require large scale change (like #1) and might not even be plausible upon further thought, but ti would be a good direction to aim for.

Thoughts? (please be nice - I'm more than willing to revise my thoughts and ideas if valid arguements are presented contrary to what I just posted).

 

Sounds perfectly reasonable. I think this could be accomplished.

The way things are currently structured this can't happen, which is a shame. This is definitely something that needs to be looked at seriously. But I doubt the DMOZ establishment would ever drop the above sections without extreme pressure or legal actions.

Again, sounds perfectly reasonable. I think this could be accomplished.

This requires no special attention at all. I can promise you that places like DP will always be around to keep the folks at DMOZ "honest."

 

I think you have been looking too much on DMOZ editors door way sites that are made for DMOZ, I don't think any normal site is formed in this way because it is simply counter productive for them.

 

Absolutely nothing. Someone asked for my opinion and I supplied it. that doesn't make it more or less valid than anyone elses. I would like to add that ODP staff and founders (the same people who wrote the goals) have never seemed to have a problem with Adult - so I'm inclined to assume that they don't dissaprove.

I've never seen an editor removed for politely expressing thier opinion. I've disagreed fiercely (but respectfully) with staff, admins, and metas on multiple points, and I'm still an editor. Not to say no one has ever been removed for suspect reasons, but I've never seen it.

I'm sure that my interpretation is influenced by my own beliefs - to the same extent that somone holding the opposing view would have their interpretation influenced by their own beliefs. That's just human nature.

What would happen? The admin would lose a lot of respect and possibly not be an admin anymore if he was trying to actually enforce such a policy (no way for me to know that exactly). No one person has that much power, admin or not.

I agree and disagree with that statement. To an extent, the policies of the ODP are largely decided by a reletively small percentage of editors. However, any editor who wants to is welcome to get involved and voice their opinion. We can't force "little editors" (your words) to get involved in the community of dmoz. So policy is dictated by staff and those that care enough to get involved and make themselves heard.

 

My experience, from a browsing perspective, has been that adult websites create many small free pages with the intent of driving business either to affiliates or to their own larger membership/AVS site. These are usually not accessable from a central location as they want the illusion of many independant sites. Outside of porn sites, I agree, this would would be counter productive, but in the porn world this seems to work.

There are, of course, going to be examples that show otherwise, but many sites follow this template. We go along with it in Adult because we are interested in listing content. If the site has a good amount of pictures and they are "quality" (subjective), then it gets listed.

 

many small free pages with the intent of driving business either to affiliates or to their own larger membership/AVS site. = Doorway page

Are you admitting that DMOZ is in business of listing doorway pages so they can generate income for the owners of these doorway pages? Wasn't this the same thing as I stated many pages ago.

Why not only list the actual site that is selling the content, any such site will have many preview page also if the user doesn't want to buy and it is only interested in looking at couple of pictures. Is it because DMOZ can not directly collect the affiliate fee from such sites?

 

LOL. Well, this leads back to editors listing these sites for personal gain. I stated previously that I doubt even 10% of the Adult editors are there just to be a part of the greater good that is DMOZ. Obviously, if someone wants to contribute to DMOZ in a meaningful way they edit the Kids category, or Arts, or some other crap like that. They don't edit Adult...unless they have a personal stake in doing so.

 

You say it with a wink, so it makes me wonder if you really believe your own rhetoric or not...

I know of other Adult editors who I'm pretty are not webmasters (other than myself). What would it take to prove this to you guys (and why do I even care...)?

 

Don't worry about it I believe it and so does anybody else who cares to look at the evidence which is right in front of our face. After all it is not every day that a DMOZ editall editor admits that DMOZ is in the affiliate doorway page business for the porn sites.

 

I'm seriously interested in what you guys think could be done to improve Adult. You say it's broken - tell me how to fix it. Give me specific ideas!

 

Come on sidjf, you are not one of those DMOZ moron messangers that were here earlier. You know that if there is a real desire to fix the problems; both adult and non-adult section can be fixed in less than 6 month and that like my daughter used to say, will be just eazy peazy.

The important question will be:

Is there a will to fix the problem and is stopping the corruption, an acceptable choice for editors?

 

Ditch it entirely.