I saw a thread in which a person was asking about the tips for dmoz editorship but it is closed. I want to write few points and it will be helpful : 1. You should be honest when applying for the editorship. Mention why you join Dmoz. If you want to promote your website then mention it. Do not hide the information, write honestly. 2. Choose regional language means hindi, chinese, japenese, russian, etc and the category that have only few sites not more than 30 and it should have no editor. 3. You have good knowledge about the category you have selected. 4. They also tell you to write the title and description of 2 or 3 websites which fits the category you have applied for. Description should not be long and it should explain the whole website in just 1-2 lines. 5. No grammatical mistakes. Apply for the editorship and all the best.
Not true. The application form's preamble says Your chances of becoming an editor are greater if you apply for a small, underdeveloped category to start (generally categories with less than 100 sites). That's not in any of our documentation. This FAQ in RZ specifically states It's OK to apply for a category that already has a listed editor.
Why is it that when an editor says something wrong all the other editors remain silent, but as soon as a non-editor repeats it editors are all over it? Are you guys TRYING to mislead the public or what?
Not true, you'll only get some meta on your back which will constantly check your edits trying to prove you are corrupt so you can be removed that is if they accept you in the first place... Also not true, metas knowledge covers very few languages so if there is even slightest suspicion about editor which edits in languages they don't understand he/she will be removed without any real evidence just be safe. This could actually make them think there could be Conflict of Interests. And it should sound very boring! This is relevant only if there is meta which knows the language otherwise it could total gibberish and nobody would know.
I'm not sure how correcting a no doubt well intentioned error could be considered to be misleading the public. Neither am I sure why you seem to have a problem with me doing so. Are you saying that I'm not doing it often enough or clearly enough?
I'm just saying that what's posted in the OP has been posted before by editors in one form or another... but the only time such " no doubt well intentioned errors" are corrected are when they are posted by non-editors. Which means that when the first time it was said, it's still stated as fact by an editor and left as fact by the rest of the editing team. Ya know, kind of like when I say following the guidelines is good, and an editor tells me that such advice is shaky When I repeat such advice about it being shaky I am wrong, but NO editors are willing to step up to the editor that originally said it. Or when I point to RZ and am told by editors that such a site is NOT an official source for the ODP... but seemingly it's perfectly fine for you to do so. Just pointing out double standards I guess... It's really no wonder that so many editors place that disclaimer on their sigs, none of them can seem to agree, yet none of them are willing to disagree.
I'll generally correct inaccuracies here if I notice them - whoever posts them. Fortunately, reading every thread here isn't yet compulsory . Are you saying that you think I ought to be a moderator here and police this forum full time? It's not going to happen.