Pro-Anorexia Section in DMOZ

As far as the terrorist category on how-to site as DP said it might be interesting, but I don't think you realize how far it could go. All of a sudden you have a section on DMOZ dedicated to beheadings of Americans and a section on basically how to goto a local school and blow up a bunch of children, don't worry they were killing themselves anyways by numerous categories endorsed by DMOZ.

Why worry about the anorexia when the child pornography category has them dead inside anyways? Great points guys. With this freedom of speech I'm going to see how much damage I can do to some kids today, wonder how high the adsense pays for these great new niche categories?

I hope they're libel, they probably are. I don't think a small disclaimer is exactly bulletproof if a person dies.

Freedom of speech sure, but it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

 

The approach of the ODP (as a whole) towards listing sites is purely based on legality, not on morals and not on personal taste. When it comes down to questions of "yeah, but legal where", the last time I heard this discussed, because the servers are located in California, we have to defer to that local law, when there is a question.

However, individual editors are not forced to list anything which is illegal in their own country, nor anything that they personally find contrary to their morals. But they are not allowed to delete those submissions, either - the correct procedure is to ask another editor to do the review for them.

I doubt there is one ODP editor who doesn't find at least one category to be objectionable, or in poor taste - and anybody using the ODP will probably be able to find something which, if they were an editor, they wouldn't want to deal with.

My attitude is similar to my attitude about television - if I don't like it, change the channel.

 

Good points made all around, but I still disagree with the existence of this category. I was curious, so I used DP's KW suggestion tool. Here's some pretty scary Overture #s:

pro anorexia 587.5 /day
pro anorexia web site 98.5 /day
pro anorexia site 44.3 /day
anorexia tip 42.4 /day
pro anorexia picture 44.3 /day
sexy anorexia 35.5 /day
pro anorexia on xanga 22.6 /day

anorexia link suggest 10.0 /day
add anorexia link 13.0 /day
Are there anorexic SEOs in our midst?

anorexia treatment 125.8 /day

I couldn't find any statistics I consider statistically foolproof, but estimates I browsed say that from 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 anorexics will die because of the disease.

 

Wasn't there a category about "nose-picking" a few years ago?

 

So you feel that the ODP should delete the category on the grounds that you, and, presumably, a group of other people, find it offensive?

 

All I'm saying is that I disagree with the existence of this category. I said nothing about dmoz removing it on the grounds of my opinions. If they remove it, it will hopefully be motivated by the desire to prevent people from starving themselves. What is the deal with dmoz editors and condescending attitudes, anyways ?

Should there be a pro "cutter" or self-mutilation section? People could share tips on the best types of blades to use, and effective sterilization techniques. Anorexia causes very real harm to people.

DMOZ has obviously made a concious decision NOT to include certain sections, like websites that glorify "cutting". There is no Pro-Bulimia section listing sites that allow users to share purging techniques.

I'm not attacking the first amendment here. All I'm saying is that websites that encourage young girls to starve themselves shouldn't be given legitimization and a leg-up in the search results by dmoz.

Interestingly, it seems that Yahoo removed all pro-anorexia sites from their index, according to a Time article from 2001:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,169660,00.html

 

I'm sorry if you feel I was being condescending - that wasn't my intent at all - I was just trying to find out what you feel that someone should be doing about it, that's all.

I understand that you feel the category shouldn't exist - and I completely respect your opinion. Others (not known to me) obviously differ.

I have seen no such discussion, neither in public nor in the private editor fora, where a conscious decision was made not to include the sections you name, nor any other. Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? If so, I would like to see it, because this would give a precedent and grounds to take action on this issue.

As long as these sites do not break laws, listing is allowed in the ODP. Please see http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#notinclude for the guidelines used to make decisions about listing sites. All it takes is for an editor (or group of editors) to want to catalogue these sites, and a category is set up for them. I suspect that the reason that no such categories have been set up yet is because no editor has expressed an interest in doing so.

The ODP is designed to catalog the web (the degree to which it is successful is obviously open to debate - see the myriad of threads on this and other fora that discuss that) - unfortunately that covers the bad parts as well as the good parts.

Here's another way of looking at this: If Google and other search engines that use the ODP data were to use the category name as a "block" on search results, then that would be an easy way for them NOT to show pro-sites in their results.

I completely understand that you are upset about this issue - but please respect the idea that others may have a different view about listing these sites.

Footnotes: The Society/Issues section of the directory is often one that causes a fair amount of discussion - the issues in there are often controvertial and highly-charged.

The Yahoo article talks about them hosting content about this on their servers - that's a bit different from cataloging them in a directory. In fact http://dir.yahoo.com/Health/Diseases_and_Conditions/Anorexia_Nervosa/Pro_Anorexia/ contains several pro-anorexia sites listed.

 

I stand corrected on a few issues Alucard. I definitely was mistaken that they purposefully haven't created sections on pro-bulimia, etc. What I should have said is that I don't really understand why anorexia gets it's own section, but no pro-bulimia (pro-mia as it's called) section. I've looked around, couldn't find many other sections or sites that promoted what I would consider "self-harm".

Also interesting on the Yahoo issue. I had read in a couple locations that they were "banned" from Yahoo's index. I guess I should have researched a bit more. I'm at my day job at the moment, my boss even had the nerve to give me some stuff to do... some people....

Sorry about the condescending jab. I detect it oozing off some editors, your comments really weren't.

I definitely do realize and respect that. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it though

After reading over the guidlines more carefully, removing these sites does seem to strongly conflict with the dmoz mission of providing conflicting viewpoints on major issues.

I'm just saying that in my opinion, dmoz shouldn't include sites that promote harming oneself or others. Any doctor will tell you that anorexia and bulimia are extremely harmful to your body. "Harming oneself" is obviously open to interpretation, editors would have to decide on a case by case basis.

This is somewhat similar to editors deciding whether or not sites with affiliate links are acceptable. I think it's not unreasonable for people to decide whether a site is promoting physically harmful behavior or not.

I definitely don't expect this to happen, this is just me ranting. Take it with as much salt as you please

 

Quite the contrary - there are a bunch of things in the Adult section that many would consider as self-harmful activities. Others consider certain religious practices as self-harm (some mental, some physical - I have seen some pretty scathing things about circumcision, for example). ON the topic you mention, the "pro" people are feeling discriminated against, from the small amount of reading i have done ion this subject since you posted your article.

Stuff like this is a tough call.

Then the question of whether an ODP listing "stops letting them hide" or whether it legitimises the practice. Sometimes giving someone a voice shows them up to be as they really are.

And just because the ODP does it doesn't mean I agree with it either

[QUERY]After reading over the guidlines more carefully, removing these sites does seem to strongly conflict with the dmoz mission of providing conflicting viewpoints on major issues.[/QUERY] Exactly.

Very definitely, yes.

 

As far as I know child porn is illegal in whole USA and 2257 declaration is required by federal law but it has never stopped DMOZ from listing illegal editor's sites.

 

Try and stay on topic, this thread is about Pro-Anorexia

 

Interesting, I'm off to register a few new domains. This is one, large niche with a cult-like following.

Y'all know how generous with their wallets members of cults and the church are. Yeah, baby.

Pete

 

Just came across a list of anti-anorexia sites:
http://www.4girls.com/
http://www.healthybodyimage.com/
http://www.adiosbarbie.com/
http://www.bodypositive.com/

There were more and I will list them as I come across them again.

 

http://www.adiosbarbie.com/ is listed in

Society: Issues: Health: Body Image: Fat Acceptance: Publications
http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Health/Body_Image/Fat_Acceptance/Publications/

and

Society: Issues: Health: Body Image
http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Health/Body_Image/

---

http://www.bodypositive.com/ is listed in

Society: Issues: Health: Body Image

---

The first two are not listed - but you could also suggest them