Surprise, Surprise, Not really. Pedophile sites are back in DMOZ.

GWorld sorry to burst your cynical bubble, but I do most of my ODP editing during breaks while at work. Accessing even categories like that would be considered against my work's terms of use, so I can not.

One school of thought is that the categories have reverted to before Annie led the clean-up with other Adult editors. Others seem to think that things are pretty much exactly before the crash. I was simply seeing if I could do something to help, without wading through the whole argument again. Since you folks have obviously researched the categories thoroughly, I was hoping for your help.

I thought I had just a tad more credibility on this board. It seems that I do not, based on Gworld's and Minstrel's cynical comments. Oh well. Carry on without me.

 

How was my comment cynical? You requested information. I provided it.

 

True, Minstrel - sorry - this whole topic infuriates me on a lot of levels and Gworld's useless snide comment caught me wrong. You're right, and that you for pointing it out. Can you confirm that these sites were actually removed BEFORE the crash? Because this thread implies that sites that were removed somehow reappeared again.

 

Do you mean useless snide comment like this one:

Who are you kidding? Even when you supposedly quit DMOZ, you never dared to speak against the masters.

 

What the heck are you talking about? Alucard's reasons for quitting had nothing to do with what was going on at Digital Point or at DMOZ. Why in the world would he continue posting here to speak out against DMOZ after resigning?

It's perfectly normal and acceptable for an editor to want to take some time off for personal reasons. When they do that, there's no point in coming here to make a bunch of noise about a problem they don't have.

Alucard is one of the good ones and he doesn't deserve the treatment he's getting here...and you know that.

 

If he has no problem with corruption, pedophile sites,.... and will not speak against it, then what makes him one of the good ones?

 

They can't. The next log in would be "Sorry....You've been cut-off the league."

 

I believe many editors have spoken against the pedophile sites - how many were cut off? However, when I pointed out, in this forum, that Staff had long ago ruled against sites harmful to kids and quoted the ruling from an internal forum (some time after I had retired) it was made known to me by an Admin that this would be used against me should I apply for reinstatement. So, quoting evidence of an anti-pedophile official policy already in existence, is apparently a felony offence - make of that what you will. Personally, gross incompetence and mismanagement comes to mind. I also warned, prior to the discovery of those pedophile listing by the general populace, that listing teen porn sites carried a high risk of listing illegal sites - apparently that was panic-mongering but risk management is a basic project management function that must be taken seriously - the recent outage is even more evidence of that.

Something that was never highlighted originally, which I find odd in some ways, was that the editor responsible for the pedophile chat room sites was removed. Removal of an editor requires examination of the editor's logs by meta editors. Which means that a number, not all, of metas will have been well aware of those listings for a very long time. Was it incompetence they were left listed, or something more sinister? Either way there are no answers where anyone comes out smelling sweet and anywhere else you would expect resignations, forced or out of honour.

The corruption one is difficult - the protocol is not to name suspect corrupt editors publicly but to report it via confidential routes where a cynic might suggest some cut and dried cases are quietly pushed under the carpet. Conducting discipline cases openly hasn't done Wikipedia any harm so I would suggest that a way of dispelling the suggestion of corruption in DMOZ is to follow the Wiki example. Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

 

Therefore, DMOZ "senior" editors have much to fear.

 

Someone will submit this idea for review and in two or three years how knows.

P.S.
Imagine when somebody finds copy of internal meta forum in few decades what will they find there? Who shot JFK? True identity of Jack the Ripper? Or only dozen posts made back in 1998 by original creators of DMOZ.

 

One or two might...

 

Are you referring only to Admins or all "senior" editors? Even if you are just talking about Admins, I still think that your estimate is too low.

 

Never underestimate sick people!

 

How the heck could any editor approve these sites and THEN how the heck could the meta's continue to do nothing about it. If this whole episode doesnt show corruption im not sure what does.

I'm sure there are lots of honest editors but there are plenty of crooked ones too and by the very fact that they are flourishing means that some if not all of the metas must be in on it to.

Shame on you corrupt Meta Editors.

 

The pro pedophilia links are still not removed which shows that pro pedophilia senior editors have enough power to protects those links. My questions is if some one can be pro pedophilia without actually being a pedophile? I don't know the answer, so may be minstrel can help us with that question.

 

I think some of the propedophilia supporters are misguided "free speech" supporters who believe that in supporting this sort of trash they are defending civil liberties - when in fact they are defending the practice of victimizing and brutalizing children who look to adults to defend them.

Individuals who are truly propedophilia in their own views are pedophiles by definition, whether or not they have yet acted on those views, and perhaps more importantly they are supporting an industry that relies for its existence on the victimization and exploitation of defenseless children and the rationalization ("neutralization") of that behavior by its supporters... including those editors who push to retain such sites in DMOZ and other editors who permit them to do prevail.

 

Well said. There are misguilded idealist who take the 1st amendment ( as far as us Americans ) a little too far. Not getting that you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, nor can you slander, etc.

Oddly enough they skip right past the second amendment...

 

It is not a matter of free speech, that point was argued in the internal forum and they lost the argument.

The problem seems to be that "pro" pedophilia editors are too strong and will not let those listings to disappear.

 

Wonder what you were looking for when you found those

 

You need to read a few more DMOZ threads before jumping in - and you can lose the smirk.

Gworld was looking for exactly what he found - evidence of continuing corruption by the DMOZ Adult editors mafia.