The goals of red cross are clearly defined. they are open to public scrutiny and both their financial and organizational decisions are of public record. I am sure if one day red cross decided to favor some supplier in front of others, do not issue any statement about what they are doing and start killing people instead of helping them, many of volunteers won't stand for it. Why do you think that it is good that discussions are closed? Do you think that editors are not smart enough to listen to discussion and make up their mind and instead need to be lead like a sheep?
I wouldn't say ODP is corrupt. There is lots of abuse (much, much more than any meta will admit), but corruption implies an organized system of abuse, which I really didn't see. Sure, there have been individual editors that have been corupt. But are most editors corrupt, no. ODP is just slow. Too few editors, and too much to do. To the anonymous red rep: please sign your name next time.
I think a culture that sweeps the problems under the carpet and denies the problems only increases the problem. The only way to deal with corruption is by honesty, openness and head on. It will not go away and disappear just by denying it. I asked before in this thread but no editor answered my question. How does DMOZ knows who is the editor and who is the submitter and how much corruption really exists when the only accepted solution to any problem is denial of the problem.
If you have an editor account, you're an editor. If you're caught spamming the directory, you'll be removed (I hope, I'd never actually saw a case of this). An editor is responsible for all actions done while logged in, including all edits. If an editor is caught giving preferential treatment to his/her own sites, the account will be closed. It doesn't matter who submitted the sites. I agree that there needs to be more openness. And I said so just about every time I could. The problem is that the people that want it more open are just plain-old editors, and don't want to say anything to offend anyone. Because if you offend a meta, you can kiss those promotions goodbye. And those that already have access (metas/admins) don't care... because they already have access I guess, and don't want to share.
Imagine a bank that every employee has the key to safe and the money in the safe is never counted, so nobody knows how much money was in the safe before or how much is in the safe now but the bank president says that if any employee caught stealing, they will be dismissed. Would you keep your money in such bank? The important words in your statement was if and caught. Can anyone tell me, how can an editor be caught if he/she is not a total moron? A former editor stated that I have found misuse previously and in this thread I found again abuse by showing an editor who has added 3 extra listing to original phone sex listing and I got a green from present editor for it, so if I can find abuse without even accessing DMOZ internal records, then why DMOZ can not find it? If I can find abuse by looking in 1 category and in less than 10 minutes, how many abuse exist there that are never noticed? The truth is that situation in DMOZ is exactly the same as the bank I described and without the proper procedures will always be the same. It is sad that a noble idea based on social responsibility for making a better Internet for users and the free volunteer work of many, has reduced to corruption, power hunger of little people who find comfort and satisfaction in being almighty meta and other editors who have learned to keep their mouth shut in order to, not jeopardies their promotion. May be I am a romantic but I hope that one day the REAL DMOZ volunteers can turn this disaster around.
I think ishfish is an editor, look at his post. Look at other editors posting here. Look at evidence of abuse that even editors confirm and you tell me what is your conclusions. May be you would like to tell me why DMOZ can not find clear abuses when it is detectable in 10 minutes or answer any other question that I posted in my previous postings.
An editor adding their own sites, while also adding others - or an editor suggesting their own sites and another adding those sites are not abuse. As long as the sites are declared in the affiliations database and they are treated just like any other suggestion, there is no abuse.
I checked those sites when they were first posted (the phone sex ones that gworld brought up). So - what part of my last post wasn't related to gworld's prior post? He said the three phone sex listings were editor abuse - he was told then that they weren't - I'm repeating what was told earlier. Should I just put a link to that post? Ok - I'll go find it and edit this post when I do. Edited to add - gworld first post about phone sex , answer part 1 , answer part 2 - what part of those answers lead to gworld's conclusion that he found abuse? I guess I could ask the same question of you - have you been actually reading this thread?
I think this thread as enough important issues (child porn/Pedophilia, affiliate marketing) without starting to discuss procedural failures in DMOZ but I will be more than happy to discuss it in another dedicated thread here. You have mentioned as long as the sites are declared in affiliations database, and if the sites aren't? Who is going to know? Have you heard about private domain registration or do you know that probably a large percentage of all domain registered to adult sites use false name and address? I think when I was looking at one questionable site, the address was actually a hospital. How do you know that submitters and editors are not the same? How do you know different editors are not the same? How do you know that suggestions are treaded the same when there is no clear procedures on how the suggestion should be treated? Do you think that suggestion that waits 2 days and suggestion that waits 2 years are treated the same? What DMOZ considers stopping abuse policy has such big hole in it that not only you can drive a truck through it but most likely can sail an aircraft carrier in it. Let me ask you something, when you volunteered for DMOZ were you thinking that this is such a great work, through my free labor, we can help pedophiles organize, editors sell phone sex and meta editor market and sell porn site membership and earn commission on affiliate programs?
just to recall this posting, one may agree or disagree to gworlds position,when complaining and claiming editor abuse, in respect of those phone sex listings. On the other hand, those "deeplinks" have been critizised by various posters out of various reasons. We might all agree (again) though, that this practice is a major source for leaving the impression, that there is abuse.
After the intermission about DMOZ procedural problems, let's get back to our regular programming regarding the pedophiles listing in DMOZ and why DMOZ refuses to remove these categories. "Finally, on-line chat rooms, Internet news groups -- electronic forums that cater to special interests and topics -- and e-mail are used on a daily basis by pedophiles for trading and distributing child pornography. These sites are often filled to capacity by users throughout the day. The availability of low cost scanners and software that allows the capture of original still photographs and video images from television and video recorders as computer graphic image files has made it possible for pedophiles to take original pornography and facilitate its distribution to other users of the Internet and on-line services. In July 1996, 16 members of a group that often frequented a chat room known as the "Orchid Club" were indicted in federal court on a variety of charges involving the production and distribution of child pornography, as well as conspiracy. A joint investigation by the FBI, the United States Customs Service, and the United States Postal Inspection Service determined that individuals used the chat room to arrange for and transmit child pornography. While in the chat room, they also discussed their involvement and desires in molesting children. What was especially significant in this case was that many of those conspirators later admitted active participation in child molestations within each of their own geographic locations. One subject of the "Orchid Club" case admitted to having sexual attractions to girls age four to ten years old. He also admitted to writing diaries of his sexual desires for children and to secretly videotaping children at playgrounds. During a search of this subject's residence, investigators found approximately 700 floppy diskettes, 100 videotapes, diaries, writings, books, magazines, clippings, and related materials that indicated the subject's sexual interest in children." ........................... Protecting our children from becoming the victims of crime is everyone's responsibility. It is a tough responsibility for parents, neighbors, teachers, coaches, clergy, and public officials. It is a responsibility that requires constant vigilance and perseverance. Statement for the Record of Louis J. Freeh, Director Federal Bureau of Investigation on Child Pornography And this was 1996 when Internet was not half as popular as now. May be FBI is also just upset because they spammed DMOZ with their web site suggestion and couldn't get listed.
You claim to be an editor. As a fellow editor I just don't understand why you want to stay an editor if what you wrote here are your real thoughts about DMOZ.
The so called 'abuses' are not abuse or corruption at all. You have shown some things that look suspicious (my thanks for that) but have never given any prove for abuse. Be sure that DMOZ editors have looked at things you and others have shown. Sometimes corrections have been made. But I have seen no abuse by editors on these cases.
The people critizising these deeplinks are always the same small group of people. And from their many postings we know one thing for sure. They don't like DMOZ and they try to find anything to hold against it. Most of the things they find are non-issues (like these deeplinks) and they have been told over-and-over again but they keep repeating the same old accusations.
I never claimed to be an editor. I know a lot about ODP because I was an editor (a very active editor) until very recently.
It might have looked like someone went in the bank and came out with the money but it wasn't bank robbery, it just looked suspicious. In fact it was a bank loan that the person forgot to fill the application for and because he was in hurry to get his loan, he pointed a gun at the teller. You could have as well posted that in DMOZ, we do not appreciate free speech or free thinking or desire to correct mistakes and all those who are not dedicated to organizing pedophiles or selling porn membership for affiliate webmasters should be fired or even better voluntarily quit. Is this the reason that even editors that all editors here confirm were good editors like brizzie are not editors anymore?