ODP Censors run amok at Wikipedia

Story Text:

David Prenatt (aka netesq) is having a tilt at ODP editors censoring the ODP article at Wikipedia - which does carry a caveat saying the neutrality of the article is in question. All seems very childish, and I doubt that it is of import to anyone other than those public spirited ODP editors that are playing games at Wikipedia, but there you go.

Giving the devil her due, it was Jean Manco (aka ODP Meta Editor jeanmanco ) who first corrupted Wikipedia's ODP article back in late May 2005 without generating an appropriate response from me. However, Keith Tipton (aka XODP Meta Editor kctipton ) has now picked up the book-burning torch and begun to run with it, and it should now be apparent to all parties concerned that Keith and his ODP cronies will encounter no opposition from me in their ongoing attempts to censor Wikipedia's article on ODP. Rather, I am content to use XODP as a vehicle for commenting on their antics.

The XODP forum is on Yahoo, and for the life of me I cannot remember how to access it. This link is to the email that was automatically circulated with comment there


What Would Tweety Say?

Answer: "He don't know me very well, do he?"

I'm no censor, I don't run amok, and I have no cronies or a book-burning torch. But, an article -- fact-based, no less -- about ODP should not be confused with an article about what ODP critics think about ODP. Perhaps a single section could summarize all the criticisms in one place, but Netesq tried (and I don't believe him that he's giving up) to put "opposing views" in just about every paragraph.

I'm sorry to read that he feels so unwell about this that he'd use words like corrupted and cronies and book-burning. Is that a way to discuss things sensibly?

I'm also sorry to see this is news in Threadwatch (but it's a slow day, isn't it?). To try to redeem it a bit, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/2408 is the direct link to the message cited by cornwall.

Actually, the post referenced by kctipton has been deleted

kctipton wrote:
== I'm sorry to see this is news in Threadwatch (but it's a slow day, isn't it?). To try to redeem it a bit, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/2408 is the direct link to the message cited by cornwall. ==

Actually, the post referenced by kctipton was deleted earlier this morning, Tuesday August 30, 2005, so you would be wise to follow the message cited by cornwall or visit the resurrected version of the original message at the XODP Blog.


The ODP's descent into struggling for any kind of legitimacy at all is heartwarming to me. I hate to take pleasure in the downfall of others, but DMOZ is a project that's going nowhere and the faster it gets there, the faster we can all forget about it and move on to bigger and better things.

Props to Wikipedia for attempting to get it right.

My oh my!

Thanks for letting me know that I'm now the victim of a personal vendetta. And all for trying to inject some facts into an article that was anything but neutral. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Directory_Project for the argument.

By the way, I am not currently an ODP editor. When I was, it was at the humbler level of editall.

LOL, ODP has long been in the shitter

I really don't see how a Wikipedia article could further tarnish it's reputation among webmasters - and I don't believe that any other significant section of the online community (with the possible exception of a few dedicated ODP editors themselves) would notice if it just evaporated, especially in the wake of G's recent cleanout.

Unless you've got a line on a "tame" editor (either yourself, once or many times, or a "friend" ;) who'll place your sites for, um, a consideration), your chances of getting a site into a useful cat in a timely manner are slim to none.

Of course, I know there's an argument that they are merely trying to keep overly commecialised, built-for-AdSense type sites out of the ODP, but frankly, I think the quality of their data drops every day.

I remember one cat (this was some years ago now) that had obviously been created for the express purposes of listing a predetermined set of sites related to a certain pharmaceutical. Some not-very-complicated WHOIS searching revealed that EVERY site in that cat belonged to a small circle of pharma affiliates.... who all knew the cat editor. As I knew all of them, and knew that they all knew each other, of course it was very easy for me to spot it. But my knowledge was hardly secret squirrel, decoder ring only grade.

I knew from that day that ODP was essentially doomed. I think it's a real shame for the dedicated few who still really believe in the vision, and are doing their best to stem the tide and create something good. I wish them well, but they are tilting at windmills, IMO


has and will always be a thorn in the side of dmoz...

I'm with Rand. I really

I'm with Rand.

I really just wish ODP would have the good grace to call it a day and die with what dignity it has left.

its google

The ODP won't fade away until Google stops using it as a prime resource.
Until that happens, the mania around it will continue.
So, who knows someone at Google who can be 'encouraged' to use their personal dev time to develop some software that will crawl their index and automatically generate an annotated directory? :)

Threadwatch Feedback from ODP Censors

"A recent post at Threadwatch entitled, "ODP Censors Run Amok at Wikipedia" . . . featured my previous XODP post entitled, "ODP's Censors Emboldened at Wikipedia, and both Jean Manco (aka XODP Editall jeanmanco < http://dmoz.org/profiles/jeanmanco.html >) and Keith C. Tipton (aka XODP Meta Editor kctipton < http://dmoz.org/profiles/kctipton.html >) have
responded there."

See < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/2420 >.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.