It would deserve a round of applause had it been done immediately. Because of the delay then they were out, then they were back, then out again, it gives a bad impression, easily avoided. But then this whole sorry incident was easily avoided - the existence of these categories has been known for a long while at the highest levels and they should have been quietly removed when the editor went the same way. Had that happened there would have been no free speech nonsense and no controversy - it would have been simply accepted by all. And it was covered by an AOL Staff ruling. Poor management at a high level. This doesn't surprise me nor really disappoint. DMOZ is essentially an amateur effort and Admins have day jobs too. Plus they are scattered around the globe so time zones are not going to match. There is a strange dichotomy. On the one hand the essence of DMOZ is that it is an amateur, voluntary effort, and attempts to introduce "professional" elements actually detract from the experience as you cannot organise volunteers and shoehorn them into professional ways of managing projects. A professional project manager relies on a team that at the end of the day will accept their decision and implement as instructed - DMOZ volunteers baulk at such direction, always have done. On the other hand you need a very high level professional hand at the tiller to deal with things like this issue with pedophile advocacy sites decisively, one that understands the corporate implications and is above petty rivalries and politicing. When I first joined DMOZ it had a good balance - volunteers headed by a single highly respected and competent paid professional. The Admin system was introduced as an experiment to increase self-governance. More than once it has failed to deliver, when the chips are down, inspiring and decisive leadership whilst at the same time taking more and more of the less important decision making processes that were consensual into closed session, imposing personal preferences on the community. The latter is, I believe, a factor in declining editor numbers as collective and open decision making is eroded. I think the final outcome, which will come too late for praise to be heaped, and with an air at least of reluctance, will be positive all round. And it will be time for the next serious issue to be tackled, whatever that may be but I am sure Adult will still be in the frame somewhere. The answer, IMO, is to call time on the Admin experiment and return to professional salaried leadership unconstrained by committee and above politics and any power trips. I can actually think of a number of existing Admins I would offer the job to had I the power. People who undoubtedly would inspire me to return and give time I don't have to. And would inspire others likewise plus increase the productivity of those still inside but becoming less and less active by the day. But whilst the truly inspiring leaders of DMOZ are hamstrung by the committee method I fear continuing decline.
Why only in Adult categories? And who gets to judge? There are a lot of sites about various religions that I think hurt people...
minstrel, you don't have to put it another way, I think there is consense between all of us. gworld, it also might help to re-read your own postings and sidjf replying to them gworld, it reads, Part A the two most controversal categories (and the sites therein have been removed. It goes on with Part B A date can't be given for the conclusion of the discussion as they did not set a deadline - they will discuss it until the discussion is done apparently. Now, I am not happy at all, that this discussion is taking that long, but I am hoping for the sake of DMOZ and all volunteer editors there, that a solution will be found that resolves this matter once and for ever. This was posted before all the above: For my part, I fully agree and so should you gworld.
I understand that DMOZ is in a damage control mode just now and admins feel forced to remove the most controversial sites to stop the complaints from editors that were surprised by this situation but the discussion about adult section is much older than what you think you know and it goes back to many years before this. It is always been the policy of those who want these sites, to run the discussions in to the ground and hope that people forget about it after awhile. I have no problem that you agree with what they are doing but don't expect me to agree and I suspect if you knew the full story, you would not agree either. For start, why don't you try to find out how old these discussions really are?
Since DMOZ is apparently taking action now, does this mean that if I search the adult section it will be "clean" now? Have censored/removed people that are responsible for this stuff? Have there been any studies done on the profit an adult editor can generate on their own sites as a result of being able to list 100s of pages from their own or affiliated sites?
Who told you they are taking action and it is suppose to be clean now? Are you dreaming or having too many drinks on Friday night?
More Gems from "highly selective, quality content" web sites listed at DMOZ: "People react negatively because we challenge the accepted viewpoint that children are non-sexual, and so should be kept ignorant about sex. But you can empower children by teaching them about loving sexual relationships at an early age, and giving them the opportunity to make an informed decision about having it." ........................ "However, he says freedom for the association will mean sexual freedom for all - including lesbian relationships between women and girls. This restructuring of society would also legitimise social taboos like incest and bestiality. "Two women psychologists in America say the healthiest introduction to sex for a child should be with their parents, because it is less threatening and the emotional intimacy more comfortable,'' he opined. " ............................ "These children like having sex with older men, he reassures me. "I was very sexually active from about age six.'' With such high quality content listed in DMOZ, it is understandable why Admins have a such hard time deleting it, don't you think so?
I can't believe how such editors can even have an "equal voice" in the discussion. Am I understanding correctly the logic here: Since he was sexually active at age six, it would be okay to help young children by providing them with pictures and stories about having sex with adults?
We don't. I wish gworld would post his sources. No one can tell from that post which site those quotes come from. I can only wonder if his point here is to seek removal of the offensive material or to indulge his own love of bitching and fighting.
I suspect it's from one of the sites still listed by DMOZ Adult, although I admit I don't know for certain. The former. I don't think anyone can blame him for being cynical about the likelihood of that happening, however.
The source is from a site listed under pedophile-"AFFIRMATIVE VIEWS" in DMOZ. Those enlightening quotes are by pedophile Kevin Bishop. Now that you now the source, what are you going to do about it?
Well, I'm going to ask "which site" of course. The real question is, are you ever going to just tell us, or do you want us to keep guessing while it stays listed?
as this whole crap makes me jump, here it is http://w(x)w(x)w.q.co.za/news/(x)1998(x)/(x)9809(x)/(x)970627-pedo.(xy)htm
vulcano; Please modify your post, so they won't get an extra link through this thread. edit: Thanks Vulcano Annie, how difficult is it to find the site? There are 11 site listed in that category and the site description in DMOZ says: "Interview with pedophile Kevin Bishop ". You mentioned in another thread that it is not DMOZ editors job to help anybody but when it comes to these things, it seems editors need help with every step of the way.
Annie, vulcano, sidjf, pagode and other editors (except imocr) Now that you have the links and anything else that you might need about these sites, any idea when these sites are going to be removed? Are you still waiting for the result of Admins discussions? I understand that those discussions started in the last millennium, any chance that there will be a result before the next millennium?
Well, you didn't provide the category or the site. You played around with it and by the time you spit out the facts I was out of free time. Family comes first, ya know? I don't believe I ever said that. Can you provide a link?
It was in my post, pedophile-> "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" http://dmoz.org/Adult/Society/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/Affirmative_Views/ it is site #7. Volcano even provided you with the link to the site.