Is this a NEW ruling on what is admissible or the old one? In other words, is this what the Admins have come up with after more than a month of discussions, or is this what existsed before they started "discussing"? If this is new, they are still COMPLETELY missing the point of what has been said in this thread: THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISCUSS PRO-PEDOPHILIA VIEWS. This is not about legality at all. This is about ethics and morality and responsibility and creating vs. protecting future victims.
This is the new blah,blah,blah version of the old. They have added so much word to make it sound reasonable for those editor that complained but not close the door on pro pedophilia or as they call it "AFFIRMATIVE VIEWS". The listings are still a matter on interpretation of the rules by editors and the interested editors can find the sites enough complaint to be listed. It is interesting that Admins needed so much time to reword the old policy.
That is pathetic. If this is what they've come up with after almost 6 weeks, there is no hope at all for DMOZ without intervention from AOL or Google or somebody with a clue
DMOZ editors remind me of the kids in grade school who had a single mom who was never at home. "We can watch TV til 1 A.M. in the morning if we want", stuff like that.
At least the listings there are getting less and clogo is history. http://dmoz.org/Adult/Society/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/Affirmative_Views/
That's pretty amazing after only 1 1/2 months and 81 pages. Would you like a standing ovation now or do you want us to wait til the job is done in about 6 months?
This is the new category charter. IMO it's an excellent beginning, but it is just a beginning. This gives us a no-nonsense guide to what is and is not to be listed without much wiggle room that I can see. The old way could be summed up by saying if it's legal, we probably should list it. This is no longer the case. My favorite part of the new charter is the part that tells us not to list "material that aims to sexualize children in a manner that appeals to prurient interests." Consider all those sites that have been careful about the words they use, but we all know their intention. Also consider those sites that use perfectly innocent photographs of children that on any other type of site would be fine. Considering the topic is pedophilia, we know it's creepy because while it's not pornography, we know the intention is to appeal to the prurient interests of a pedophile. Before, they would be listed, now they will not. I like that we now have the descretion to deny listing to these sites based on what we believe they imply. As far as I know, there is no other place in dmoz where that much editorial descretion is allowed, let alone required. This new category charter is a very strong tool, IMO. With this tool we can go through the category to remove listings that were guideline compliant before the change, but don't even come close now. One thing that may not be clear unless you know how ODP works, is that this change is specifically for the pedophilia category. Now that it is in place, all subcategories must be brought into compliance with this charter. There will be a reorganization of the subcategories under pedophilia, all listings will be reconsidered, a lot (if not most) will be removed as they will no longer be compliant, and the category structure will change. There will be no AFFIRMATIVE VIEWS. The descriptions of the existing subcats are now obsolete, as is the category structure. This is just the first step of major changes. The standards to be used for the pedophilia category have changed substainially, and they are to be applied in a much more restrictive manner. I'm happy. I've already removed some sites that I couldn't touch yesterday and now I'm going back to hunt for more.
I'm starting to believe you're taking your position quite seriously, Annie. Why haven't they put you in charge before?
I guess I can see your point, if it is only a beginning. My concern was that there is still a strong emphasis on "illegal" and subjecivity - I wish I were as confident as you seem to be that this reduces "wiggle room" but my suspicion is those Adult editors are pretty expert at wiggling by now. I hope you're right.
I am cautiously happy about what has been achieved. Sorry, having to tell you, that you would be one of the last persons I would ask to applaude.
off topic, besides that your presence in this thread is obsolete, I don`t assume you knowing how high or low I set my goals.
Well, if you're happy with the fact that some of the pro-childporn listings are gone, then like I've said: re-think your ethical goal settings a little bit.
Instead of posting nonsense, it would help to read what people posted before you dare to respond. I never said that I am happy with the fact that some listings are gone. Also, please note, that you never mentioned my ethical goals before. END
Just ignore Blobmaster (formerly known as Toots), vulcano. He usually hangs out in General Chat where they seem to like his style of hot air.
I wish, but we still have to edit within the guidelines. Since my last post I've been working on scouring one single website. The bad stuff was very well hidden and it took a lot of digging. We have to explain, in detail, why the site should be removed. The title was The Pedophilia/Pedophile Education Web Site and the dirt was well below the surface. Feel free to help ferret out details.