I just bumped into this. Is this supposed to be Net Art because this is Sad. I hope DMOZ Editors will look at the matter. Thank you very much for your patience. Net Art Inside Notes
I have to say that my first impression was that it was terrible that DMOZ lists such sites. I started browing through it, and had some second thought. In one section people are asking for help to kill themselves, but there are alteranate opinions also. e.g. I am writing to tell u guys NOT to die. I suffered from a disease called hypopiturism and I think killing yourself might not be the best idea. I've tried, so hard that i was in a coma for a month. and i saw the reaction when i woke up NOBODY "REALLY" KNOW WHAT HAPPENS AFTER DEATH SO BEING IN SUCH A HURRY TO FIND OUT IS NOT A VERY PLESANT WAY TO FIND OUT. If he'd had the chance to see the pain he caused by killing himself, I don't think he would have done it. Perhaps the site may provide an outlet for these sad frustrations and prevent an actual suicide.
The mouchette site - seen it before. Wasn't there something that implied it was some kind of scam? If it is a scam then it wouldn't provide valuable information of any kind.
Well it's supposed to be a work of art - not real. So I don't know whether all the responses are made up or not. The bottom line is not wheter it's real or not, but if there is benefit to list it. http://www.turbulence.org/curators/media/ Named after the main character of a Bresson film of the same name, Mouchette ("little fly" in French) has been buzzing around the Web for well over three years now without seeming to age a bit. Perhaps she has just been so busy making new work that she has not had time to update the HTML on her homepage listing her current age as "nearly 13 years old." I'm sure that if dear, overworked Mouchette had a nickel for every e-mail she's received inquiring as to whether she might be lying about her age, she would be able to treat us all to an evening of fun at an amusement park (something her namesake does in the film). In any case, visitors to her site are likely to feel giddy just the same. She'll make you giggle and cringe and if you're the type who gets easily spooked, you might want to have a friend hold your hand along the way.
That's complete nonsense and blatant DMOZ apologism. If a pro-pedophilia site has the occasional post saying "I think what you guys are doing is wrong and harms kids", you'd argue that its DMOZ listing should stand? Or a pro-anorexia site filled with posts encouraging young teens and pre-teens to see who can get closest to dropping 100 pounds before dying would be OK if every now and then someone pops up to say "This might be unhealthy"? A little logic and common sense would be appreciated.
What is a suicide kit ? (some people already know) It's something that allows children of all ages to play suicide. It's a new toy. It comes in a box, with various elements that let you pretend you can kill yourself in all kind of different ways. It's my own invention ! I have very little experience in the subject, and there's hardly any material available for children to learn about that question. So please, will you help me? What is the best way to kill yourself when you're under 13 ? hmmmmm very artistic dont you think?
I'm not that keen on pickled sheep either. If it is a work of art then it is sick. At least it is in an Art category and not somewhere pertaining to be in any way real. To be honest I don't know what you can do about things like this. If you remove it having judged it to be some kind of sicko art where do you stop? It is clearly unsuitable for kids. If it had to stay I would move it to http://dmoz.org/Adult/Arts/Online_Writing/ where at least there is PICS protection and you can't get at it from the DMOZ front page.
Personally I agree with you but we come up against guidelines again. According to the description of the Adult/Arts/Online_Writing category this site cannot be placed in that category.
So, if I understand this correctly... That site is unsuitable for kids. It's also unsuitable for adults. And the reason it's listed at all is.... ???
The guideline that prevents us from listing this site in the category brizzie suggests says in part: Remember that, under the Adult Guidelines, written works that qualify as Adult contain sexually explicit material and lack "literary, artistic, educational, or scientific value." I see nothing sexually explicit about that site.
And that's why it will never be listed in Kids_and_Teens/. But the "classic" ODP was never meant to be child-safe. The Adult section was meant to primarily house pornographic sites. It was not meant as a section for sites that editors felt were morally or ethically wrong. I don't see a problem with where it is listed now.
Another DMOZ editor who doesn't see a problem with listing a pro-suicide how-to-kill-yourself site? What IS it with you people?
I'm wrong. The Adult guidelines say "The Adult category is for sexually explicit content and pornographic material as defined above. It is not to be used as a hiding place for other types of material that one may find offensive, distasteful, or inappropriate for people under age 18." It's crap, not art. Anyone can stick a label on a pile of garbage that says "Art", don't make it so. It's still a pile of garbage. That said I don't know where you start and stop censoring "art" and who decides. How about the World/Francais approach - they decided Personal Pages.
Why not? They don't mind being webpage critics and decisiding which pages should be listed and which should not. What's the difference? You're surely not trying to suggest that of all examples of art on the web this is the best you could find, are you?
Hmmm. There's a useful tip for designers of travel affiliate sites. It's art don't you know. Maybe not. But you can put up a load of misleading tosh with content that looks like serious stuff but is faked, call it art, and away you go. "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." If the information is unreliable, call it art and list it. Sorry, I've got a touch of gworlditus, be better in a couple of days... Honestly I don't see any way it can be completely removed but I don't think it is art and I do think it is in the wrong place. Personal pages contain the sites for unverifiable personal stuff - I think the Francais editors were right.
So can allowing the trash to accumulate in DMOZ. Very unhealthy indeed. It attracts maggots and other unsavory things.