Oh My look what Dmoz Accepted to Their Listing.

Hello,
I was doing search on dmoz and came accross this :

http://dmoz.org/Home/Consumer_Infor.../Internet/Directories/Open_Directory_Project/

Look at the first entry which happens to be DmozSucks . So i guess dmoz doesnt care too much about content does it now ?

 

heehheeheh.

I submitted Linkspup to dmoz like last week. Lets see.

any idea how much older i will get waiting for an answer?

 

Nothing bad with that category, but I guess someone should definitely re-review sites #2 and #4 (and maybe do something nasty to the editor, who added them).
#2 (edit: now #1) - Open Directory Review from Search Engine Showdown - minimum content, just 1 page of useless faq and fancy fake menu
#4 (edit: now #3) - Why the Open Directory isn't Open - just one article about the topic? And there seem to be multiple similar entries for traffick.com. (Who the hell could do this?...)

 

I only see three entries in that category now.

 

...hm... hxxp://www.dmozsucks.org/ was removed since my last post. :~)

 

Here too. I dont see a dmozsucks site. Its funny that the one from the editor still needs $33 (from 2000!!) to get the site online. someone chock up that $33 and see if this guy is still alive LOL

 

Yes, I think we have established DMOZ lists sites based on preference, not impartiality.

 

I think this also establishes that DMOZ can move quickly when they care to. That would suggest that all the lame excuses about how long it's taking to get rid of pro-pedophilia and child pornography sites are just that -- excuses for delaying action.

 

Lets be fair, there are no child pornography sites listed in DMOZ and there have never been any as far as I can tell.

Editors are working on it, but I can't think of any reason why persons opposed to the current content of the pedophile categories can't look for more suitable sites and submit them for listing. If you think it's futile because they wouldn't be reviewed in a timely manner feel free to send your suggestions directly to me. I'll be working on it for awhile, any help would be welcome and appreciated.

Added: Please send appropriate suggestions for the pedophilia category to me, I promise I'll look at them.

For an example of something I'd consider appropriate, please take a look at this site I found yesterday, immediately listed after careful reveiw and "cooled" ...I "cool" less than one site a year, but this is the type of site that someone looking for anti-pedophilia information would find extremely useful, IMO:
No Tolerance for Pedophiles - Educating the public about pedophiles and predators, including juvenile sex offenders. Includes information about protecting children and exposes pedophile propaganda.

 

That's kinda funny.

Looks like the cat has been updated (very recently). Take a look at the cache of the pages and tell me no sites have been listed before.

Recently, as in about 12 hours ago: Last update: 23:03 PT, Saturday, April 29, 2006

 

I think you continue to operate on a rather narrow definition of "pornography".

http://www.google.com/search?source...GLJ,GGLJ:2006-05,GGLJ:en&q=define:pornography

1. Pornography doesn't have to be images - chat rooms and other sites discussing sex with children is child pornography.

2. Sites which portray images of over-18 models in such a way as to imply that they are young teens may not constitute child pornography in a legal sense but I can and would make an argument that in an ethical-moral sense that is also child pornography.

 

That was a cache of pedophilia related sites, the one Annie is working on. There is a difference between child pornography and pedophilia. Child pornography is a class of material for pedophiles and sites containing this type of material have always been banned and their owners reported to the authorities. The pedophilia sites did (and probably do still until Annie gets to them) contain other material designed to appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles which are also now banned but which a very small number of editors, until recently, thought could be listed.

[Added: though you make some good points minstrel. Either class of site is IMO equally as bad]

 

Yes, but see my post above.

 

Yep - I edited my post when I saw yours.

 

Well, duh!!! If you go back and read my post you'd see that I clearly said I'm working on it. Of course it has changed in the last 12 hours, that's what "working on it" means. Thank you for confirming that!

Minstrel, morally I'm in complete agreement with you about your interpretation of what should be considered pornography. In reality pedophilia is not pornography, but we both already know that.

 

Why are you turning this into another pedophilia thread? I am tempted to redrep you all.

 

Because I've spent almost all my time this week working on fixing that category and when I take a break and see the opinion stated that nothing's being done it's demoralizing. I defend my work. I don't exactly enjoy working on this topic you know.

Besides, all threads in this forum turn into another pedophilia thread sooner or later. Staying on topic is so last year.

Added 30 minutes later...
Vlasta, the topic of this thread is "Oh My look what Dmoz Accepted to Their Listing." and we're talking about DMOZ listings, I don't get why you have a problem with the discussion. It's clearly marked as a discussion about DMOZ listings, you don't have to read it if you don't want to.

The reason I came back after 30 minutes to edit my post is that I realized I lied. We do have a Child Pornography category. I haven't checked the listings, but I'm sure someone/everyone from this forum will do it and let us know of any problems.

 

I think it's disgusting that ODP even has a pedophilia catagory...

 

Bang on fella!

Thats exactly it why is there any need to cover such things at all?

 

This article - When kid porn isn't kid porn: images of naked children that don't meet the strict legal definitions of child pornography - is an interesting one related to our discussion, although again I think the author is using an overly restrictive definition of "porn as images".

Again, I think the issue it raises is the distinction between legal liability and social-ethical-moral responsibility. What individual websites do is one thing; what an organization like DMOZ does is another because of the influence or stature it has acquired, deservedly or not. My opinion is that DMOZ should be less concerned with legal liability and more concerned with social-ethical-moral responsibility.