Talk:Open Directory Project/Temp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As discussion threads expand, the mediator will summarize the points made and remove the bulk of the text, which will remain availble in the history. When comments have been summarized, the poster's name will appear in [square brackets]. If anyone feels something was missed (or misunderstood) by the mediator, restore that quote from the history.

[edit] Article Outline

This is a work in progress. Edit it as you see fit, but discuss any edits you feel may be controversial.

• Introduction
• History
  • Who founded it, stated motivations for founding
  • Gnuhoo/Newhoo name change
  • Netscape purchase, ODP/DMoz, AOL Time-Warner
  • Milestones
  • Competing and Spinoff Projects
• ODP Content
  • Organization and scope of content
  • Maintenance
  • License and requirements
  • Who uses it
• ODP Policies and Procedures
  • Becoming an editor
  • Editing guidlines
  • Editing heirarchy
  • Site submission
  • Communication and decision-making processes
• Controversy and criticism
• External links, related articles, etc.

[edit] Resolved issues

[edit] Citation style

• What we have now is fine.

[edit] Gnuhoo/Newhoo

• Gnuhoo/Newhoo info moved to History subsecton.
• Using the "GNU" name was controversial for several reasons: "GNU" is a trademark of the Free Software Foundation, GnuHoo didn't use free software, volunteer editors felt tricked into working on a commercial project.

[edit] License and requirements

• The ODP's license and usage requirements will be briefly stated and attributed; details of the license will be in the Open Directory Project License article.
• Possible exceptions to the license need some sort of confirming citation before being included.
• The requirement of the ODP table on web pages that use the data will be refered to as an "attribution table" rather than an "advertisement".
• The enforceability of usage licenses is a bigger topic than the ODP specifically and deserves its own article.

[edit] Competing and Spinoff Projects

• While ChefMoz, MusicMoz and Open Site all use ODP-style editing and are worked on by ODP editors, only ChefMoz was officially founded by ODP management.

[edit] Misc.

• Some (mostly) uncontroversial milestones insered.
• Material on Kids and Teens section added.
• Added subsections on "Organization and Scope", "Editing Model" and "Editing Guidelines" well received.
• General agreement on the complexities of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: present opinions as such without asserting them.
• Netesq, an ODP critic, is impressed by the rewrites and contributions of Alpdpedia, an ODP supporter.

[edit] Unresolved issues

• Who own the ODP: Netscape Communications or AOL Time-Warner directly?
• Number of sites listed
• Number of editors
• Editor removal; see Talk:Open Directory Project/Editor removal
• Link rot and unreviewed sites

I think that the issue of who owns ODP is best left the way it is. To wit, ODP is owned by AOL Time Warner -- i.e., AOL acquired ODP when it acquired Netscape Communications, a stock transaction wherein Netscape stock holders exchanged their shares of Netscape stock for shares of AOL, then AOL merged with Time Warner. I suppose we could get into the vagaries of dmoz.org running in a namespace that is no longer associated with Netscape or AOL Time Warner, as well as the issue of who pays the two or three employees who are "staff" at ODP, but (IMHO) such a discussion would be unnecessarily complex and confusing.

I think that the issues of "number of sites listed" and "link rot and unreviewed sites" are closely related, along with the issues of what is not included in the RDF dump (i.e., Test categories, Bookmarks [once included; now excluded], Editor notes, and ODP Editor Forum discussions). However, a nominal assertion of 3.8 million sites in the body of the article could be balanced by a discussion of the related issues in the section devoted to controversy and criticism.

I will discuss my opinions on the issue of editor removal in the separate talk page devoted to that controversy. -- NetEsq 17:20, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] General discussion

[edit] Useful resources

• ODP's official response to questions of editor removal
• Could ODP learn from Wikipedia?
• Genesis of the Open Directory Project
• Some ODP stats and graphs

[edit] Introduction

"owned by AOL Time Warner" is still in dispute [...] I wonder if it is actually important for this article who own the ODP as neither Netscape nor AOL has shown much interest in this project [...] -- [Invisible Friend|"Invisible Friend"]

Many people consider questions of "who owns what" important, so we should cover it. However, it's probably not the most pressing issue to deal with. -- Stephen Gilbert

Introduction is now very short, is there something else worth listing here? -- The "Invisible Friend"

Most likely. Keep in mind that we don't have to produce the perfect article, only one that everyone can agree is fair. Once we have something that won't provoke an edit war, we'll put it back into the normal Wikipedia editing/expansion process. -- Stephen Gilbert

[edit] Skrenta's bio

re "Skrenta was already well known for his role in developing TASS[...]"

According to his article and website it rather seems likely that he was already well known for writing "the first microcomputer virus". Also this seems like it should go to his article instead.

re "Coincidentally, the original category structure [...] was based loosely on the structure of Usenet[...]"

Is there any resource which indicates that he used the Usenet structure because of his "role in developing TASS"? Also is it really important why he has chosen it instead of simply stating that he has? -- The "Invisible Friend" 10:34 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to reformat this section as you see fit. There's nothing being considered here that can be reasonably construed as controversial. -- NetEsq 05:54 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] ODP Content

[edit] Directory Maintenance

I found some link rot figures. ODP 0.25%, Yahoo 8%. // Liftarn

If you're going to use these figures - you should probably mention that they are based on the ODP's own analysis of Yahoo, and not anyone independent. Angela

Good point. It sounds like they let Robozilla stomp through Yahoo so the link rot count is done according to the same standard. // Liftarn

The source is the article Liftarn mentions below; Genesis of the Open Directory Project. Click on the Robozilla page for the data. Angela

A key point, when we incorporate this information, is that Robozilla is not perfect (just as any web crawler is not perfect). Some sites flagged by Robozilla are not "rotting", while some sites that are "rotten" (as in the case of hijacked domains) are not flagged.

That said, the number of sites reported as "rotten" or, in ODP terms, as "errors" follows a sawtooth pattern; peaks are caused by Robozilla completing a sweep, and this is followed by a gradual decay to (or very near) zero. In 2003, the sharpest peak was about 1% (larger than usual) and the current figure looks close to 0.2%. -- Alpdpedia

I don't think we should include "link rot figures". They are both unverifiable and fluctuate too much to list. -- The "Invisible Friend"

Since bringing down link rot in web directories was one of ODP's goals it is interesting to note, but perhaps the figures shouldn't be included. The question is how to word it. "When measured using Robozilla the link rot at Yahoo was aproximatley 30 times as high in Yahoo compared to ODP"? // Liftarn

I have introduced some text for this section in the draft document so that we have a starting point for discussion. Alpdpedia 20:23 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There seems to be a great deal of discrepancy in re link rot statistics, which are closely related to unreviewed site submission statistics. To wit, many sites that create Robozilla errors are stuffed back into unreviewed submissions. Accordingly, if you are going to include the former, use whatever figures you think are reasonable estimates, but you should also include reasonable estimates of the latter, currently hovering at about 1 million unreviewed sites. -- NetEsq 18:04, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] ODP Policies and Procedures

[edit] Becoming an editor

"In addition to the secrecy associated with ODP's editor removal procedures and ODP's internal forums, there are many other restrictions imposed on ODP editors, including restrictions on who can become an ODP editor in the first place."

Any objections to striking the portions in strikeout type? -- NetEsq 02:29 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What about "In addition to the secrecy associated with ODP's editor removal procedures and ODP's internal forums, there are many some other restrictions imposed on ODP editors, including restrictions on who can become an ODP editor in the first place."? // Liftarn

Definitely "some" instead of "many". The text itself only lists few restrictions, so even "some" is a bit biased. No problems with the last part by me. -- The "Invisible Friend" 09:57 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps both some and many should be removed? // Liftarn

Good idea -- The "Invisible Friend" 16:01 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I propose, "There are some restrictions on who can become an ODP editor." This seems true enough, and not particularly controversial. -- NetEsq 17:46 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Since this is in the Becoming an editor section, yes this seems better. I'm still not fully happy with it, but I can't acually point to something specific (perhaps rewording is needed because of Alpdpedia changes, perhaps there need more text on the requirements). -- The "Invisible Friend" 20:12 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Note: I have removed one of the two paragraphs in this section. It almost entirely duplicated information in preceding sections. Alpdpedia 17:50 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Suggestion for rewrite of this section:

Reasons:

• There are restrictions imposed on who can become an ODP editor.
  I believe this is misleading. In principle, any person (with internet access) can become an editor. (The exception is removed editors... but since this topic is dealt with elsewhere in the article, there's no reason to bring it up here.)
• The primary gatekeeping mechanism...
  All application processes are gatekeeping by their nature. Thus, to use both phrases is redundant.
• ...presided over by ODP's meta editors...
  Not entirely accurate. Staff, meta editors, and catmod editors all review new editor applications. The former group is (I think) probably obvious, and the latter two groups are mentioned having this ability in the next section (Editing model). Thus, in the interests of brevity, I think we can delete this.
• Approximately 90% of these applications are rejected, but re-application is the norm.
  This number is inaccurate. (Where did it come from?) It is true that a large portion (the majority) of applications are rejected, but stating a percentage without any explanation is, I think, misleading. A very large number of the rejected applications are "not serious" (for example, repeating the same keyword 100 times for every field on the application). The high occurrence of these "prank" applications makes any numerical analysis of rejection percentages meaningless. Further, since no statistics are kept as to the reasons for rejection/acceptance, there is no way to estimate how many of the legitimate ("serious") applications are accepted, and how many are rejected.

Alpdpedia 20:09, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

As a starting point, the rewrite is much better, but (based on your explanation above) I would add and/or reinsert the following as the second paragraph:

"There are some restrictions on whom can become an ODP editor, most notably former editors who have been removed from the project by ODP staff are not eligible to re-apply. However, former editors have been known to re-apply and be accepted because their status as a former editor is not disclosed and is not discovered during the application process. Additionally, a large portion of applications are rejected because they are prank applications. In any event, no statistics are kept as to the reasons why particular applications are accepted or rejected, so there is no way to estimate how many legitimate applications are in fact rejected."

-- NetEsq 21:05, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Site submissions

The current section on Site submissions fits better under Controversy and criticism. Any objections to my moving it? -- NetEsq 02:32 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. I think that site submissions and the way they are handled is a key component of ODP's guidelines and procedures, so I think this topic needs to be addressed in this section of the article. To do this, a rewrite is necessary, and I will attempt to do this. If (as Stephen Gilbert has suggested for the document structure as a whole), there are additional points of "controversy and criticism" not addressed, then a parallel section can be created in that article section. However, I believe this can be avoided with a clearer rewrite. Alpdpedia 17:26 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Have at it then. You've been doing an outstanding job so far. -- NetEsq 17:46 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy and criticism

[edit] Number of sites

[T]he number of sites indexed by ODP -- which is asserted to be 3.8 million -- includes site listings that are not included with the ODP RDF dump and/or site listing that are not viewable by the general public -- i.e., the ODP Editor Bookmarks and the login protected ODP Test categories. [T]he actual number of sites included in the ODP RDF dump can be determined by an examination of said dump. -- [NetEsq]

By my count, the number of sites currently indexed (not including Bookmarks or the Test category) is 3,790,081. I don't think this difference is really so significant. [Alpdpedia]

Current numbers from ODP's public side (may be different on the editor's side):

• Arts - 303,820
• Business - 116,183
• Computers - 130,998
• Games - 54,467
• Health - 45,053
• Home - 26,616
• Kids and Teens - 15,711
• News - 48,066
• Recreation 108,890
• Reference 13,418
• Regional - 591,011
• Science - 93,306
• Shopping - 53,322
• Society - 209,475
• Sports - 69,746
• World - 531,255

- - - - - - - - -

• Total = 2,411,337 [Netesq]

I made it 2,507,096 on the public side and 3,788,689 on the editor side. User:Angela

Bookmarks and Test categories are routinely used by editors as temporary holding areas for sites they are checking (i.e. for 404 status), or for categories they are building. Further, I believe Wikipedia's statement of "143347 articles" includes wikipedian personal pages, Wikipedia: namespace articles, article redirects, etc. Does that invalidate it? [Alpdpedia]

If you look at the Wikipedia Statistics page, you'll see that the English Wikipedia has almost 260,000 pages in total. All pages in non-article namespaces (User:, Talk:, Wikipedia:) are removed. In the article namespace, we remove all redirects and certain other pages. Wikipedia:What is an article provides the criteria.-- Stephen Gilbert

The Bookmarks categories were once included in the ODP RDF dump, and the Test categories were once viewable by the general public. Included in these Test categories are a number of controversial listings, such as "Sites of Former ODP Editors" (i.e., ODP's blacklist) and "Sites Already Listed Appropriately" (i.e., suspected spam submissions). I know about 10,000 people who would really like to see the Bookmarks and Test categories included in the RDF dump and readily available for download, along with Category FAQs, ODP Editor Forum threads, ODP Editor Notes and editing logs, etc., etc., etc. [Netesq]

[edit] Number of editors

The ODP Home Page currently asserts that ODP has 57,238 editors, but (as evidenced by the ODP RDF dump and numerous admissions by ODP meta editors at the XODP Yahoo! eGroup and elsewhere) there is no question that this number is highly exagerrated, for the reasons currently set forth in the Wikipedia article currently being discussed.

The actual number of active ODP editors peaked at just under 10,000 logins quite some time ago; last time I checked the RDF dump, that number had dwindled to just over 9,000. [Netesq]

False! It just says "57,238 editors" it doesn't say anything about that is the number of currently active editors. Actually it has been stated over and over that that is the total number of editors over time. // Liftarn

More specifically, this is the maximum number of total editors, as it include editors who have created more than one account. It could still be less. Angela

For perspective, Wikipedia currently has over 16200 user accounts. Last year most people were estimating that we had 500 regular contributors, with more contributing on an occassional basis. I'm not sure what the estimates are now, but we're nowhere near 16000. The dmoz front page states: "over 3.8 million sites - 57,238 editors - over 460,000 categories". This is confusing: the first and third numbers are what the ODP has currently, not the total over time. People may honestly wonder why the number of editors must be interpreted differently. -- Stephen Gilbert

As evidenced by the ODP RDF dump, ODP has fewer than 10,000 active logins;... [Netesq]

Actually, [the number of active accounts] is closer to 9000. [Alpdpedia]

... of those active logins, a much smaller number actually edits ODP on a regular basis. To wit, if every active ODP login resulted in only one unique add every week, ODP would be growing at a rate of 10,000 URLs a week / 43,333 URLs a month / 520,000 URLs per year. In actuality, most ODP editors join ODP to add and/or monitor the status of their own sites and seldom add more than a small handful of other sites. [Netesq]

Please, can we avoid broad generalizations that have no basis in fact? [Alpdpedia]

If one were to define "active ODP editors" as those ODP editors with active ODP logins who complete at least one edit every week -- i.e., add/modify/delete - there would probably be fewer than 1,000 ODP editors who would qualify. [Netesq]

False. The number of editors who make at least one edit in any given week is larger than 1000. [Alpdpedia]

Compare this with the small handful of editors -- i.e., fewer than 100 -- who have actually completed tens of thousands of edits, and it becomes clear that the core of the ODP editing community is not really that large, and not really that diverse. -- NetEsq 20:36 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

False. Even if you look at only the current senior (cateditall+) editors, you'll find more

than 100 who have over 20,000 edits to their credit.

One last point... I admit that the first time I looked at the 50,000+ number, I assumed it was current editors. However, I don't believe there's any attempt here to mislead on behalf of ODP staff. The explanation I received was that they wanted to recognize all editors who had contributed to the project. When you consider that some of those 3.8 million sites were added three years ago by an editor who has long since timed out, it makes sense (to me, at least). [Alpdpedia]

I've heard this explanation as well, and it seems pretty transparent to me. There have been dozens of opportunities for Chris Tolles and Robert Keating to clarify this gross and obvious exagerration when they have granted interviews, and they have repeatedly failed to do so, choosing instead to inculcate the misperception that tens of thousands of volunteer editors are currently hard at work on the ODP database. -- NetEsq

If so, at least some of these interviews should be on the web. I'll see if I can dig some up, but the more, the merrier. ;-) -- Stephen Gilbert

http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Searching/Directories/Open_Directory_Project/Press/ may be a good place to look. // Liftarn

• The changing face of search engines

". . . AOL Time Warner-owned Netscape runs the ODP, which launched in June 1998 under the name NewHoo. It uses about 210,000 volunteer editors to catalog the Web, many of whom are search engine marketers. . . .

"[ . . . ]

"Bob Keating, editor in chief of the ODP, said that it's fighting the good fight against the encroachment of the profit motive into what is rightfully an editorial process.

"'We're trying to combat the commercialization of search,' said Keating, whose ODP has a catalog of 3.8 million sites, compared to some 4 billion for Google. 'A lot of Web directories have gone the other direction. As search gets even more commercialized, the Open Directory is the only one that's left that's really grounded in the original concept of the Net--that it's an information source and not a money-making vehicle.'

"He added that the ODP has checks and balances to stop spammers from controlling the directory."

210,000!?!?!

• Search Results

"The need for human organization and categorization of the Web led to the creation of entities like the two-year-old Open Directory Project (www.dmoz.org), founded by Chris Tulles, now director of marketing. The entity formed to provide a low-cost way for search engines to get organized content to produce meaningful searches.

"Background: Two years ago, other directories were not doing a good job keeping up with the flow of information on the Web, says Tulles. `We wanted to fill the gap by creating the largest human-edited directory on the Web.'

"The directory was and continues to be built by volunteers. Practically anyone can become an editor by completing a form on the Web.

"Requirements are limited: Editors simply must have an interest or hobby that translates to the category they cover. Exception: The directory does not allow a company to own a competitor’s category. ODP currently taps more than 30,000 editors to create categories—now 300,000—and continue to build them."

• Google Introduces Web Directory Using Netscape's Open Directory Project Data

"In contrast to Google’s huge number of reachable pages, the ODP currently includes about 1.5 million entries, arranged in over 200,000 categories, selected and maintained by a volunteer corps of more than 22,000 editors. Though the ODP contains links to only a fraction of the estimated 1 billion pages on the Web, its focus is selective. 'A 'free for all' links page benefits no one—and the big win for the Open Directory model is providing high growth, with good quality,' said Chris Tolles, marketing director for the ODP."

[edit] Editor removal

The debate got too big for this page; moved to Talk:Open Directory Project/Editor removal

Added: I think that the subsection for Size of the directory and number of editors is unnecessarily redundant with the subsection for Directory Growth and Maturation. Would you (Alpdpedia) be willing to attempt to incorporate the former (i.e., "Size . . .") into the latter (i.e., "Directory . . .") and refactor the content into something that incorporates both an explanation and criticism of the rationale for listing the total number of ODP contributors on ODP's Home Page? -- NetEsq 02:17 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Except for "many former editors simply reapply under an assumed identity" anything is already mentioned correctly. -- The "Invisible Friend" 10:02 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Several modification ideas

Hi. Please accept my apologies for making some changes yesterday without discussion ( [1] was me - now reverted by netesq). I'm already devoting much of my time to the ODP and was somewhat afraid of joining such a complex discussion here at the Wikipedia (which is new to me; I'm hoping I'm participating in the discussion in the right way now). But I saw the current draft on the ODP still lacked neutrality/impartiality (and a spelling error), so I thought it could be acceptable to make some self-explaining changes, since the goal is an impartial, factual article.

Well, then I'm now proposing the changes here.

- Changing the occurrences of heirarchy (spelling error) to hierarchy.

- Changing the paragraph about Allegations of abusive editing practices in the way you can see on the mentioned difference page.

Abusive editing practices instead of Allegations of abusive editing practices and There are some ODP editors who give ... instead of There have long been allegations that volunteer ODP editors give ... - because it is a fact that there are abusive editors; nobody is denying this, neither the critics of the ODP nor the ODP's meta and staff editors. I would add: This is not tolerated by the ODP community and reason for complete revocation of editing privileges.

I also would add:

2003 saw the introduction of a new Public Abuse Report System which enables users of the ODP to report suspicions of abusive editors/conduct to DMOZ meta editors and staff using a form. [2]

I think this is an important fact showing the ODP's reinforced efforts to fight abuse. It is one of the most significant newer ODP developments. If you wonder why it's not hosted on dmoz.org: it was developed by a meta editor and like quite a lot of the most useful new ODP tools not yet hosted on dmoz.org, but has the full approval of staff.

Moreover, in a widely publicized federal lawsuit ... and Allegations of unfair competition at ODP and unethical ... I left untouched, though federal lawsuit might need some clarification for users outside the USA.

(I beg your pardon for including the following here, didn't want to split my proposal in two parts)

- Editor Removal: I removed the very in the sentence ODP's editor removal procedures, which are overseen by ODP's staff and meta editors, are very controversial. because I personally don't perceive the controversy as very substantial - I think just are controversial is better, more neutral than something like are very or are slightly. But it's not very important and I can live with the very :-)

I had also removed the entire sentence As such, former ODP editors who have lost their editing privileges are often left to wonder why they cannot login at ODP to perform their editing work. Reason: This is what the removed editors say. In fact, removed editors get a special page when they try to log in, explaining the possible reasons for removal. They don't get an individual explanation, true. But I think most of removed editors who say I don't know why! know it perfectly well. If the sentence has to stay, I would change it to something like As such, some former ODP editors who have lost their editing privileges say they are left to wonder why they cannot login at ODP. (to perform their editing work is redundant; it's the usual reason for login at ODP).

- My biggest change: I replaced the lengthy ODP's paid staff has imposed controversial policies ... paragraph with a short: ODP's paid staff has imposed controversial policies from time to time, and according to some ex-editors, their accounts were removed because they openly dissented. This should suffice. It is concise and neutral. volunteer editors who openly dissent often find their editing privileges removed is not; it is the point of view of some ex-editors. There might be other reasons they aren't willing to mention; the public doesn't know what's going on behind the scenes and it would be wrong to base this paragraph on the viewpoint of ex-editors as it would also be wrong to write it based on what metas say. User:gestumblindi 20:31 28 Jul 2003 (CET)

I think we are pretty much on the same wavelength, Gestumblindi. Moreover, as I stated previously, by virtue of Stephen Gilbert's mediation, I think we are all finding a great deal of common ground, thereby reducing the perceived controversy to the actual facts in dispute. Nonetheless, there are still going to be issues of when to use words like "significant," "most," "many," "few," and "often," as well as issues of when facts are actually in controversy. On this note, I was amazed to find out recently that a "significant," albeit relatively small, number of ODP editors whose logins have timed out are greeted with the "your login has been deactivated" page when they try to login at ODP. Apparently, this is a software glitch, but it speaks to the issue of how vague the reasons are for a former editor not being able to login at ODP, even when former editors are given a list of possible reasons. Relegating such obvious vagueness to a mere claim of vagueness is somewhat disingenuous. -- NetEsq 19:03, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Added - It may be some time before our moderator reorganizes this discussion, and by virtue of the new section edit feature, I am going to take this opportunity to comment on one of the modifications you have proposed above.

<< [I]t is a fact that there are abusive editors; nobody is denying this, neither the critics of the ODP nor the ODP's meta and staff editors. >>

"Allegations of abusive editing practices" is far superior to "abusive editing practices," as there is substantial disagreement as to what actually constitutes abusive editing practices at ODP, just as there is substantial disagreement as to whether ODP does, in fact, tolerate abusive editing practices by selective enforcement of the editorial guidelines that favors senior editors and discriminates against junior editors. In the opinion of ODP's critics, such selective enforcement gives the illusion that ODP is enforcing the guidelines, but allows the vast majority of abusive editing to go undetected for months or years.

There is also substantial controversy about the nature of ODP's guidelines in re their formulation and substance as well as their enforcement. To wit, the ODP guidelines are not, in fact, guidelines. Rather, they are strict rules handed down by AOL Time Warner's paid staff who have the power of life and death over individual editing privileges, including the editing privileges of ODP's meta editors, and many ODP critics consider ODP's enforcement of the ODP guidelines to be extremely draconian.

By way of comparison, consider the fact that Wikipedia has *NEVER* imposed a permanent ban on any Wikipedian, and the small group of Wikipedians who have been banned from Wikipedia are invited to plead their case on the Wikipedia mailing list without fear of moderation and/or to e-mail Jimbo Wales directly to appeal his decisions. In striking contrast, XODP editors who post an inquiry in re their removal at the ODP Resource Zone are quickly shut down, and e-mailing ODP staff to request reinstatement is the equivalent of e-mailing dev/null. To wit, don't hold your breath waiting for a response. -- NetEsq 17:19, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Moreover, in a widely publicized federal lawsuit ..."? Ok, what is a federal lawsuit and is it really necessary to write about the a views of a single ambulance chaser? It looks like nobody else have bothered writing about it. // Liftarn

Every state in the United States -- e.g., California, New York, etc. -- has its own sovereign government -- i.e., its own legislature, its own set of statutes and its own courts. Most lawsuits in the United States are brought in state courts, and the results of such lawsuits have no impact on the law of other states. In contrast, a federal lawsuit is based upon the United States Constitution and/or laws passed by the United States Congress, and the outcome of federal lawsuits have wide ranging impact on all courts, both state and federal. Consequently, there are many restrictions on who can bring suit in federal court.

The importance of the case in question, J.K. Harris v. Steven Kassel, should be self-evident in that it was brought by the largest tax representation firm in the United States and the defendant is a prominent ODP editor who has appeared on various nationally syndicated talk shows (e.g., NBC's Today) and was a candidate for the United States Congress in the year 2000. Moreover, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a noteworthy public interest law firm, has taken an interest in the case, filing a motion for reconsideration of the court's preliminary injunction. Even if no one but the EFF had taken an interest in the case, their involvement would be noteworthy, as the EFF cannot be fairly characterized as "a single ambulance chaser." In any event, the case has in fact been widely reported by various news organizations and law journals. (E.g, CNN, Law.com, etc.) -- NetEsq 14:46, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, NetEsq, you wrote

<<"Allegations of abusive editing practices" is far superior to "abusive editing practices," as there is substantial disagreement as to what actually constitutes abusive editing practices at ODP>>

OK, if that is what you want to say, then let's say it clearly. New proposal for the paragraph:

=== Abusive editing practices ===

There are some ODP editors who give favorable treatment to their own websites while concomitantly thwarting the good faith efforts of their competition. This is officially not tolerated by the ODP community and reason for complete revocation of editing privileges. However, ODP critics say that there is substantial disagreement as to what actually constitutes abusive editing practices, and claim that abusive editing practices are tolerated by selective enforcement of the editorial guidelines. ODP's meta editors have the authority to take disciplinary action against other volunteer editors who are suspected of engaging in abusive editing practices.

(then add the sentence regarding the new Public Abuse Report System as suggested above, after this the federal lawsuit paragraph)

Better? :-)

Small clarification for international users: "US federal lawsuit" instead of just "federal lawsuit", ok?

Modified proposal regarding editor removal:

=== Editor Removal Procedures ===

ODP's editor removal procedures, which are overseen by ODP's staff and meta editors, are very controversial. According to ODP's official editorial guidelines, editors are removed for abusive editing practices. However, discussions that may result in disciplinary action against volunteer editors take place in a private forum which can only be accessed by ODP's staff and meta editors, and volunteer editors who are at risk of losing their editing privileges may not be given any notice that such proceedings are taking place, much less notice of an adverse decision. The rationale that is publicly asserted for this policy is that volunteer editors are assumed to know when they are violating ODP guidelines. ODP also has a standing policy that prohibits any current ODP editors from discussing the reasons for specific editor removals. Removed editors trying to log in get a generic page listing some possible reasons for removals. As such, some former ODP editors who have lost their editing privileges say they are left to wonder why they cannot login at ODP. to perform their editing work

(bold parts are new or revised. "to perform their editing work" is, as said above, redundant.)

I do not think it is needed to mention the bug regarding a few timed out editors who may have got the wrong message, netesq, (there are indeed a lot of bugs plaguing the ODP), but if you think it is really significant, feel free to add something suitable.

I will implement this proposal and the other changes proposed above if there are no objections in the next few days (we can't wait forever for reorganization ;-) ). User:gestumblindi 20:02 03 Aug 2003 (CET)

Sorry guys, I'm a little short of time this week, and I haven't been able to keep up and reorganize the discussion every day. Now, if everyone wants to donate $100, I can take a few days off work... :) -- Stephen Gilbert 18:12, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize; I appreciate your efforts. I don't know if I can afford $100, but remind me to buy you lunch sometime. -- NetEsq 18:21, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

<< I will implement this proposal and the other changes proposed above if there are no objections in the next few days . . . >>

Many of the changes that you have proposed would change the essence of the controversy and criticism leveled against ODP. In responding to the edits of an anonymous contributor, I have incorporated some of the less controversial suggestions. However, I still believe that "allegations of abusive editing practices" is the best way to characterize the controversy in question, and stating that ODP has an official policy for not tolerating abusive editing practices comes across as ODP propaganda. That's like saying that a police department which has encountered widespread allegations of corruption has an official policy against corruption. Wow, really!? Who'd a thunk it?

As for ODP's editor removal procedures, which remain very controversial, those are best addressed on the separate talk page dedicated to that topic, but I disagree with your characterization of the software glitch in question as being trivial. It was important enough that two ODP meta editors brought it up on the WebmasterWorld forums, and -- in the absence of official estimates of how many editors accidentally encounter said bug -- it remains a very important concern to editors who are left to wonder why they cannot login at ODP to perform their editing work. -- NetEsq 20:49, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, NetEsq, I can live with the "Allegations of abusive editing practices" paragraph as it stands now. (btw, the anonymous contributor wasn't me).

And let's keep the very in very controversial removal procedures, ok. I'm also not opposed to mentioning the software glitch concerning timed out editors, if you think it is that important; new proposal for the paragraph's end: Removed editors trying to log in get a generic page listing some possible reasons for removals. As such, some former ODP editors who have lost their editing privileges say they are left to wonder why they cannot login at ODP. There were also some timed out editors getting the message aimed at removed editors due to a software glitch. Good now? User:gestumblindi 21:07 05 Aug 2003 (CET)

The generic editor removal page is a relatively recent phenomenon, arguably implemented because of the fact that so many former ODP editors complained (right or wrong) that they were left to wonder why they could not login at ODP, and a step backwards if a significant number of timed out editors receive the same message as former ODP editors who are in actuality persona non grata.

How about ending the first paragraph in re editor removal procedures with " . . . volunteer editors are assumed to know when they are violating ODP guidelines." (A footnote to ODP's official response, Editor Removal Explained, would also be appropriate.) The second paragraph could then discuss the ambiguity associated with intentional editor removal and editors simply timing out:

ODP has a standing policy that prohibits any current ODP editors in a position to know anything from discussing the reasons for specific editor removals. In the past, this has led to claims that many ODP editors are left to wonder why they cannot login at ODP to perform their editing work. However, ODP is now set up in such a way that when someone attempts to login at ODP using a deactivated editor login, a generic web page is displayed that informs a removed editor that a final decision has been made regarding the deactivation of his or her login and providing a list of possible reasons as to why such a decision might have been made. At the same time, a software glitch can result in the same page being displayed when an editor login has simply timed out and the editor in question is in fact eligible for reinstatement. Consequently, the ambiguity typically associated with editor removal procedures remains an ongoing issue.

-- NetEsq 19:50, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I like your proposal, NetEsq. I have no objections. User:gestumblindi 22:47 05 Aug 2003 (CET)

This "Temp" page has much improved compared to the current ODP page. How about moving it over now? If it's still too controversial, it could be kept protected and work could continue here, but maybe this wouldn't even be necessary. I think it would be better to have a not-quite-perfect-yet page there than a really-not-so-perfect one. And anyways, every Wikipedia page is work-in-progress. -- Tengai 14:48, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No doubt this Temp page is a vast improvement over the current ODP page, but if we were to supplant the current ODP article without resolving all of the pertinent issues in dispute, particularly issues about controversy and criticism in re ODP, we would risk a resumption of the previous edit war. You will note that Liftarn and I are currently not in agreement in re his decision to create a separate article entitled ODPSS, one of many small disagreements that -- but for the use of a mediator -- could easily compromise the current cease fire over the Open Directory Project article. In this regard, the previous edit war drew the attention of highly qualified Wikipedians such as Stephen Gilbert and Alpdpedia to this article, who are helping us find common ground on which to build, but the underlying controversy remains a polemic one. -- NetEsq 16:37, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Things are looking very good, and I congratulate everyone on the efforts made to find common ground and develop a NPOV article. I'd like to see our draft article "go live" as soon as possible, but there are a couple issues that haven't been worked out yet to everyone's satisfaction. I've added an "Unresolved issues" section at the top; if I've missed any, please add them. -- Stephen Gilbert 16:08, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership and Management of ODP

I have added a subsection to the controvery and criticism section entitled, "Ownership and Management of ODP." I think this section still needs more content, but I wanted to give other interested parties an opportunity to respond before proceeding any further. -- NetEsq 22:56, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Editors

I suggest changing the sentence:

As of July 2003, ODP has about 3.8 million listings organized into over 460,000 categories and claimed to be derived from the contributions of some 57,000 editors.

To:

As of July 2003, ODP had about 3.8 million listings organized into over 460,000 categories and derived from some 57,000 editor accounts (some editors are tied to more than one account).

I would do it myself, but I don't want to step on any toes. Ezra Wax 02:49, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(some editors are tied to more than one account)

Should not be many (some dozens maybe). This would also apply mainly to deactivated accounts, since editors using more than one account get them reduced to one account or completely removed as soon as discovered (see http://dmoz.org/guidelines/accounts.html paragraph "One Editor Account, One Person"). Therefore such a sentence would need further explanation, and I don't think it's worth it. It's an insignificant fact. Btw, if you know editors using multiple accounts, please report them to ODP metas/staff (you can use the new "Public Abuse Report System" mentioned in the article). User:gestumblindi 00:46 13 Aug 2003 (CET)

[edit] Going live

Ok, ladies and gentlemen, I think it's about time we unlock the main article and replace it with our draft. I realize that not all the problems and controversies are solved yet, but I'm confident that they can be resolved without the further need of a mediator if everyone continues to discuss the issues and assume good faith. What do you think? -- Stephen Gilbert 18:39, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Assuming that the same ground rules still apply to the editing of the main article, I have no objection to unlocking the main article and replacing it with the current draft. -- NetEsq 01:15, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ideally, those ground rules would apply to all of Wikipedia. Alas, reality does not always comply. Since there are no objections, I'm stepping down as mediator, unlocking the article and replacing it with our draft. Thank you to everyone who put aside difference to work on this article. -- Stephen Gilbert 06:15, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Bravo, sir! Well done! -- NetEsq 06:49, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)