Jump to content

Talk:DMOZ/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Current work on this article is taking place at Open Directory Project/Temp. A mediated discussion of that work is at Talk:Open Directory Project/Temp.

A lot of text was changed/removed by NetEsq between versions 14:58 Mar 10, 2003 and the earlier. Why? // Liftarn

Because he is abusing and harming the spirit of Wikipedia by bringing in his personally and biased opinions about the ODP for kicking him (also likely for abusing).
I agree, but what can be done about the problem? // Liftarn

This article began with:

The Open Directory Project (ODP), also known as DMoz (for Directory.Mozilla), is a massive, human-maintained open content directory of World Wide Web links owned by AOL.

It was revised to read:

The Open Directory Project (ODP), also known as DMoz (for Directory.Mozilla), is a massive, human-maintained open content directory of World Wide Web links owned by AOL in the same way Wikipedia is owned by Bomis.

I reverted the introduction to the original version because the assertion equating Wikipedia with ODP is a highly biased and misleading assertion which is (at best) irrelevant. To wit, Wikipedia is not a Web directory, and ODP is not run by Open Source software. -- NetEsq 21:28 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

The relation of ownership AOL - ODP and Wikipedia - Bomis is the same. The projects are different in what they are (web directory vs encyclopedia) but the type of ownership is the same. ODP's software isn't open source, but the content is still open content. The system of editors at ODP makes it somewhat more simmilar to Nupedia. // Liftarn 09:38 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

My understanding is that you assign the copyright of your material to the ODP, while it grants you a license to use that work in other contexts. This is radically different than the relationship between Wikipedia and Bomis. -- Stephen Gilbert 19:35 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

The licence is different. I was basicly talking about who pays the bills. There the relationship is the same. ODP is hosted and administered by Netscape Communication Corporation. Wikipedia is hosted and administered by Boomis. // Liftarn

I dispute that. License and copyright are not the same thing. For Wikipedia, Bomis owns the server(s) and the domain names. The contributors own the copyright on their work, which they license under the GFDL; thus, Bomis does not own the content. However, ODP contributors forfit their copyright, and so AOL also own the content of the ODP. This is a very different arrangement. -- Stephen Gilbert 22:49 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

The ownership of Wikipedia -- which is currently in the process of becoming a non-profit corporation -- is totally irrelevant to this article. However, I have inserted a blurb regarding the ownership of the now defunct Go directory (by Disney) and Zeal (acquired by Looksmart), both of them being Web directories that are or were maintained by volunteers and are or were owned by public corporations. -- NetEsq 15:44 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

Btw, why shouldn't Open Directory Project License be mentioned? // Liftarn 11:37 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)


"...requires an advertisement for ODP on virtually every page of a Web site that uses the data."

This is pretty misleading, I'd write "requires an advertisement for ODP on virtually every page that uses the data.", since it does not require ad on pages which don't use the data. -- grin 08:18 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

I find it missleading since it's really a link back and not an ad. The licence also requires that you state if you have changed the data. // Liftarn

Moved from my NetEsq user page:

ODP and NPOV

Netesq, Now, I'm not exactly a fan of a lot of the ODP's policies. Some, both past and present, to me, seem unfair and unwise. But that's not the point. I don't like seeing clearly biased stuff on an encyclopedia such as this, where it's presented as fact. You know, and I know, this is biased. I try to stay as neutral as I can on this. I certainly haven't edited a lot of the criticism of the ODP, and I've left in a sentence accusing the project dearest to me (not ODP) of not having gone anywhere much - because it is in its early stages, and though it's annoying, it's the darn truth.

Now, I'd like to work out a bit of a compromise on this. Something that's acceptable to you, but doesn't read like a rant. Or alternatively, I can just keep reverting it to my own neutral version - which I'll keep doing as long as I have to. I'd much rather the former, but it's your choice.

Ambivalenthysteria 14:34 9 Jul, 2003 (UTC)

*shrugs* The point stands, wherever you put the question. Ambivalenthysteria

From Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles:

Open Directory Project

User:Netesq has been waging his own personal vendetta against the ODP for years, and the state of this article has been a result of this. I cleaned it up, merging prior revisions from two other users who had tried to make it NPOV. However, in trying to make this article more neutral, this is turning into an edit-revert war. I'm not the first to try and change it and have it reverted by User:Netesq. ambivalenthysteria 07:38 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Given the close proximity of editing activity and IP addresses, I (NetEsq) assume that this anonymous comment was made by Ambivalenthysteria:

". 22:03 8 Jul 2003 . . 210.50.10.2 (One has to wonder why certain people have nothing better to do than repeatedly try to readd POV violations clearly against Wiki rules.)

From Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:

"Neutrality is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really does disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties."

Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires a balanced presentation of opposing viewpoints. Sanitizing an article by removing criticism and/or opposing viewpoints is antithetical to this policy. NetEsq 15:10 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Given the close proximity of editing activity and IP addresses, I (NetEsq) assume that this anonymous comment was made by Ambivalenthysteria"

And you would be right there. As I've stated, I'm not the biggest fan of the ODP's policies. But I also believe in giving both sides of the story, no matter what the issue. Particularly in an encyclopedia, this is vital. This is why I'm perfectly happy to leave in phrases like "none of these has yet to achieve noteworthy success" when it is referring to my pet project. Why? Because, as much as I would prefer it wasn't, it's true. I don't try to sanitize things. It runs against my sense of ethics.

Yet, it seems to me - and you're welcome to prove me wrong here - that the very paragraph you have quoted is the one you have gone against. You've revised and edited out neutral changes by liftarn and angela. It seems to me that you've written an anti-ODP article, as opposed to one that gives credence to both sides of the issue. Feel free to show me that this isn't the case. Ambivalenthysteria

<< Feel free to show me that this isn't the case. >>

When someone accuses me of being on a personal vendetta, I find it hard to believe that he or she is going to give me an opportunity to present my viewpoint. Accordingly, the only way for you and I to resolve our differences is by the involvement of other Wikipedians who understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Ultimately, an NPOV article *MUST* present viewpoints that are critical of ODP, viewpoints with which you and other ODP editors will almost certainly disagree. -- NetEsq 15:38 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I give people a chance to state their case and will listen, regardless of how I feel about them personally. I used to be quite sympathetic to your story, but that's another story, and irrelevant to this. Feel free to get others involved. Could be the best way of solving this. Or, like I offered before, feel free to work with me in coming up with something that appeases both of us. Maybe we can get something that works. I only want to see a nice, neutral article, and then I'll disappear off into the sunset.
Of course an NPOV article must present viewpoints that are critical of ODP. I'm certainly not arguing that - there's plenty to be critical of. You'll find I'm hardly the strongest follower of the ODP cause. The question is whether the article gives both sides of the story, or just the anti-ODP side. I'm simply trying to get an article in there that gives both the pro and anti sides. Ambivalenthysteria
<< Feel free to get others involved. >>

You've already done that. In any event, the problem here is that you are trying to remove criticism of ODP rather than respond to it; responding to opposing viewpoints is the essence of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. -- NetEsq 15:54 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm not here to remove criticism of ODP. I'm here to try and make a more neutral article of one with NPOV problems. I believe with what I took from the previous revisings of liftarn and angela, I've addressed both sides fairly. Feel free to convince me otherwise. Ambivalenthysteria
As I've stated previously, the only way for you and I to resolve our differences is by the involvement of other Wikipedians who understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I say this as someone who has been involved in several NPOV disputes. Since both liftarn and angela have been actively involved in editing this article, they would not be good arbiters. Perhaps Stephen Gilbert or Lee Daniel Crocker would be better choices. -- NetEsq 16:04 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that they be arbiters, I was simply mentioning that I'd based what I wrote off what they wrote in previous attemps to solve neutrality issues. Otherwise, fine with me. :) Ambivalenthysteria
I fully agree that I would not make a good arbiter on this, but here's my comments anyway. Obviously Netesq's experience of the ODP is different to what is supposed to happen (ie- editors are supposed to be given warnings about their impending removal), but I don't know how often that occurs. Rather than focus on one person's experiences, it would seem more encyclopdic to report what can be established as fact. That editors are supposed to be told is fact. Another point is that editor removal (IMO) should not be the focus of this article. The title should reflect the content, and a lot of the content is not on the ODP itself, but on the removal of editors. I think this could be moved to another page - Open Directory Project Policies perhaps? Angela 16:39 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
<< Rather than focus on one person's experiences, it would seem more encyclopdic to report what can be established as fact. >>

The problem here is that the facts are in dispute. It is a fact -- confirmed in ODP's official guidelines -- that ODP editors will lose their editing privileges for telling tales out of school, but take a look at the XODP Yahoo eGroup, and you will find a current membership of some 160 members and over 2,000 posts narrating an ongoing saga of "He Said/She Said." This is not my story; it is the story of tens of thousands of people who are currently claimed as ODP editors but do not in fact have editing privileges -- a fact that is not in dispute -- and some 9,000 or so current editors who claim that the the other 40-50,000 people (real or imagined) are lying. The only way to present such a factual dispute in NPOV fashion is to say, "ODP's official position is . . . , but John Smith (former ODP editor) says . . ."

IMHO, the article was fine as it was, but it could easily be expanded to include more information. In any event, I see no reason to create an additional article, at least not at this time. -- NetEsq 17:23 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've left this for a couple of days to see if anyone else was going to have any input, as they're not, let me look at the two drafts for a second, and the parts that are in dispute.
"However, most of these search engines have stopped updating their ODP data, and successful ports of the ODP RDF dump have become less and less frequent".
The ODP did have RDF problems at one time, but these have now been fixed, and this is no longer an issue. Why is this still being added in?
In regards to the paragraph concerning emails with submitters, would something like "ODP now has approximately one million unreviewed site submissions, in large part due to spam and incorrectly submitted sites, making the average processing time for a site properly submitted to ODP approximately six months, depending on the category involved. Moreover, due to concerns about being abused by submitters, ODP's volunteer editors are recommended to simply ignore emails from site submitters. This, however, leaves many submitters to wonder whether their sies have been accepted or rejected." be acceptable?
Now, to the editor numbers. Firstly, why is the link to the editing guidelines constantly being removed? Secondly, the bit about reapplication, it seems to me, shouldn't stand unless there's some evidence of it. Feel free to show some.
Editor removals paragraphs. The "editors who dissent typically find themselves removed" is sheer POV writing. I'm sure this can be rewritten in a not-so-POV way. But there's probably legitimate reason here for points about the risk of editors getting fired. I sense a little bit of self-promotion here, also. Also, why is all mention of legitimate removals being removed? You know as well as I do that as well as sometime dubious removals, there are plenty of editors who get fired for blatant corruption. Thirdly, whether or not this happened in your case, I believe editors are *supposed* to get warnings before they are removed. Your version makes it seem like all editors are fired out of the blue.
Why is the Resource Zone paragraph being removed? One point above stated that submitters were left not knowing the status of their submission, and you're deleting a paragraph giving them to chance to find out that status.
Why are you changing the paragraph concerning ChefMoz, MusicMoz and Open-Site? I've tried to clarify the circumstances concerning their link to DMOZ, but you've consistently undone these. - Ambivalenthysteria 04:18 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
<< The ODP did have RDF problems at one time, but these have now been fixed, and this is no longer an issue. >>

I am frequently consulted by people who are seeking to use ODP RDF dumps, and I can honestly say that I do not remember the last time an ODP RDF dump was an accurate representation of the information displayed to the public on the ODP Web site. Moreover, even a "successful" port of the RDF dump does not include editor Bookmarks (which were once included), much less the login-protected "Test" categories, editor notes, etc., etc., etc.

<< [T]he bit about reapplication, it seems to me, shouldn't stand unless there's some evidence of it. Feel free to show some. >>


Wikipedia’s NPOV policy does not demand evidence of a factual claim; it only requires a good faith assertion made by a noteworthy person or group of people. In any event, among the over 2,000 posts at the XODP eGroup, you will find several former editors who claim that they have re-applied to ODP after being removed by the powers that be and are currently editing. (E.g., XODP Editor wlauzon, aka ???) You will also find several former editors who assert that they have re-applied in good faith after their editor logins have timed out. (E.g., XODP Editor aarongross, aka XODP Editor aaron1728, aka XODP Editor aarond144, aka XODP Editor aarondgross.) Add to this the people who surreptitiously re-apply under a pseudonym and are quietly removed by the powers that be once their double identities have been outed. (E.g., XODP Editor imajes99, aka XODP Editor fallen, aka XODP Editor ???)

<< I sense a little bit of self-promotion here. . . . >>

Actually, I sense a bit of self-promotion when an ODP editor, such as yourself, joins Wikipedia for the sole purpose of editing an article entitled Open Directory Project. Why not spend some of your time editing one of the many other Wikipedia articles that desperately need some attention? I'll make sure that this one stays current. -- NetEsq 06:37 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

<< [W]hy is all mention of legitimate removals being removed? You know as well as I do that as well as sometime dubious removals, there are plenty of editors who get fired for blatant corruption.>>

And where is the evidence for this very dubious claim? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. -- NetEsq 06:37 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This has turned into basically an anti-ODP rant. Reverting to last non-Netesq version, until someone has time to integrate some of the stuff in a NPOV fashion. --Delirium 08:54 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not 100% happy with the current revision either -- it seems to lean a bit too much to the pro-ODP side, especially in the ordering of its arguments (it always ends with an answer from the pro-ODP folks for the anti-ODP arguments. But it's at least closer in not containing entire paragraphs (or multiple paragraphs) espousing solely one viewpoint. In any case, someone who knows about ODP but is neither pro- nor anti- really needs to take a stab at this. --Delirium 09:00 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
In no manner, way, shape, or form is this article an anti-ODP rant, although an uninformed observer might see it that way. Rather, like all controversial issues, there are two or more opposing viewpoints that need to be presented. In any event, each and every unflattering factual assertion that I have made about ODP is either undisputed or is a good faith belief held by a large group of former ODP editors. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's largely why I'm trying to bring it up here, and work out an acceptable compromise between all involved. I was afraid I might have been a bit too strong in my changes.

Before I get into responding to what Netesq did say, I want to get into what he didn't respond to, in the hope of agreeing on at least some things. :)

- is my revision to the site submission paragraph above acceptable to you, if not, what would you rather as a compromise?
Take a look at the new version, and make whatever changes you think might be appropriate. That's how things work. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- the link to the editing guidelines. It's not a big thing, but why is it being removed?
I didn't see a link to the editing guidelines. If it was in the text, it should be footnoted and moved to the references, or simply included in the ODP links section. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- the ResourceZone paragraph being removed, when it provides an answer to some of the concerns raised earlier in the article
I mentioned and footnoted the ResourceZone in the text where I felt it was appropriate; if you feel that it deserves additional treatment, expand it. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- the ChefMoz, MusicMoz and Open Site paragraph

Could we at least agree on this, fairly minor stuff (more concerned with providing general fact than being anti or pro-ODP)?

Feel free to modify this; I assumed that you would. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Now, the other things.

What do you mean by "the last time it was an accurate representation"? I'm afraid I don't understand.

If you worked with the ODP RDF dump, I think you'd quickly realize that it is very problematic. The data is often corrupted. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

On re-application: Fair enough, I'm satisified with that. However, perhaps "the norm" could be changed to "often" or something similar - I'm sure not all fired editors reapply!

Fair enough. Put it in. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I didn't join Wikipedia to edit this article, believe it or not. I knew of it months ago, but only lately did I start browsing around here for research/learning purposes. Once I started fixing minor errors, etc, I decided I may as well join up, then I decided to tackle this while I'm here.

Finally, surely you're not suggesting that every editor is fired out for dubious reasons, and none for say, adding their own site and deleting all their competitors?

--Ambivalenthysteria

I can name on one hand the number of people who were justifiably removed from ODP for abusive editing practices. Even then, there were alternatives to removal that were never considered, such as restricting an editor to his or her bookmarks and/or restricting his or her forum posting privileges. And it is indeed rare that an editor is given the courtesy of a pink slip when his or her editing privileges have been removed -- I know of one case where this has happened.

Most of the former ODP editors whom I encounter are people who have done absolutely nothing wrong, but they see no point in going public with their stories. In any event, the vast majority of ODP editors simply allow their ODP logins to time out. -- NetEsq 14:36 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this article is still frankly not even remotely acceptable for an encyclopedia. There are fully two pages of anti-ODP ranting, including quite a few controversial statements listed as fact with no sources or annotation that these are statements believed by some, or note of ODP's response to charges against them. --Delirium 06:55 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree. This article is an accurate representation of both sides of the ODP controversy, and every controversial statement that does not represent an undisputed fact is fully supported by references to supporting authority. Moreover, there are several ODP meta editors who are members of the XODP Yahoo! eGroup. They are well aware of the charges that have been made against ODP, and they have had every opportunity to respond. However, official ODP policy prevents them from doing so. If you doubt this, feel free to post an inquiry on the XODP Yahoo! eGroup or contact the powers that be at ODP directly. -- NetEsq 07:08 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Actually, upon further consideration, I don't have much desire to get involved in a long drawn-out discussion here, so I'll let other people deal with it. I do think the article needs to take on a structure other than "Moreover, here is something else people don't like about ODP. Furthermore, here is one more thing several people (noteworthy among them, myself) dislike" and so on. --Delirium 07:03 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hey! Why the sabotage? I have been trying to get some structure in the article and I really don't need someone to use it as a base for his personal vendetta. // Liftarn

Because NetEsq is always reverting to his last version and then partly reapplies the changes (most often modified to included false and biased content). Also he isn't able to correctly structure the document, using h3 as a descendant of a h1.
That would explain it. Not using the header sizes correctly is an error I probably have done myself so that can be excused. // Liftarn
No you used h2 (==) and NetEsq readded it as h3 (===).

I do think the breakup into sections is useful, so not sure why Netesq is reverting that. Generally sections are good for any lengthy article. --Delirium 16:39 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that breaking up this article into sections was a good idea, which is why I included section titles in my most recent version of the article. The things that I reverted and left reverted were the huge omissions of the more controversial sections and the POV statements made by Liftarn and his invisible friend at IP address 212.202.3.21. To wit:

Disgrunted ex-editors may often spend a lot of time on badmouthing ODP at their websites, in wikis, online forums and mailing lists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sort of POV commentary has no place in a Wikipedia article. -- NetEsq 17:09 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, you are wrong. It does belong and it's hardly POV. // Liftarn
Read the comments of changes you've reverted...
The POV statement was unintentionally reimported by me, but isn't any more POV than various of your additions (like implying that all editors are kicked without warning). Nonethless this statement shouldn't be there. -- The "Invisible Friend".

Hm. Edit war. This ain't good. Guys, please work this out without destroying the usefulness of this article's history. --mav

As evidenced in the discussion above, I suggested to Ambivalenthysteria that a mediator such as Stephen Gilbert or Lee Daniel Crocker would be the best way to resolve our differences. Shortly thereafter, Ambivalenthysteria took on a more conciliatory tone, and we began a rational dialogue. However, Ambivalenthysteria has apparently moved on to edit other Wikipedia articles, leaving Liftarn and his invisible friend to pick up their own gauntlets.
The most productive way to move forward with the editing of a controversial article is to avoid drastic and controversial changes to the current text. When such changes are introduced, a revert is the only way to maintain the status quo. Contrariwise, it is incumbent upon those who seek to introduce radical changes to an article to justify such changes. -- NetEsq 18:02 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Again, dude, read the comments and also read through this discussion....

Analyzing your changes, you are reverting:

  • Structure corrections
    • h3 (===) is used for separating subsections of h2 (==) sections, see Wikipedia:How_does_one_edit_a_page.
    • "ODP was originally known as Gnuhoo[...]" is part of the history and belongs there.
    • "The original motivation for forming Gnuhoo[...]" is also history.
  • Error corrections
    • ODP is owned by Netscape (take a look at the license). AOL only indirectly owns the ODP since they own Netscape. If AOL would decide to sell Netscape they would sell ODP together with it unless they explicitly exclude it.
    • Clarification of Spinoffs origin. ChefMoz by Staff, the others by the ODP Community.
    • Clarification of ODP license, which required also a notice if the data has been altered.
    • "However, none of ODP's own spinoffs has yet to achieve noteworthy success." Hmm, none has to archive a noteworthy success?
    • ODP was founded as 'Gnuhoo and not as Newhoo
  • NPOVing
    • A counting is always a claim, it is unnecessary to mention that. If the counting is wrong (which could be proven due to the RDF dump) this would be noteworthy to list otherwise this should be taken as fact. That the editors counting is not fully correct is already mentioned in next sentence.
    • Removal of implication that editors are not even supposed to receive warnings before kicking. I'm not saying all get, but you are implying that it isn't even intended that they get a warning.
    • Removal of implication that Netscape Search, AOL Search, Google, Lycos, and HotBot aren't using the ODP data anymore. HotBot is Lycos.
    • That editor removal procedures are controversial is a claim which should be mentioned, but only as a claim.
    • Login protected data is not included in the RDF dumps as it wouldn't be login protected if it would be included.
    • "Becoming an Editor" said that there are many restriction while showing only few. Also first part only duplicates text from above.
  • Simply additions
    • A link to a related article under Related Links.

Likely there was more. -- The "Invisible Friend"

It looks quite complete to me. Anyway, it would be interesting to know why Netesq find it so necessary to remove these improvements to the article. // Liftarn
I believe there is still room for much improvement and additional content in areas like details about the founders, the scope of the topical areas covered, the Kids and Teens area (which is a separate directory in some ways), etc. However, that said, I think the version recently posted by 212.202.3.5 is far better than earlier versions, and the one that netesq has reverted to. -- Alpdpedia
Good point. I've added a bit about the founders in the history section. // Liftarn
I would also suggest that also following is mentioned
  • Absence of new RDF dumps for 6 month (was it longer?)
  • ODP's RDF not following RDF Recommendation for long time (is it still?)
  • ODP reaching it's limits and for the first time getting new resources since being aquired by Netscape.
-- The "Invisible Friend"
<<ODP is owned by Netscape (take a look at the license). AOL only indirectly owns the ODP since they own Netscape. If AOL would decide to sell Netscape they would sell ODP together with it unless they explicitly exclude it.>>

There is no longer a corporation known as Netscape, just as there is no longer a corporation known as AOL. Both are now part of the AOL Time Warner corporation. Try to find the name of Netscape's corporate president, or the names of the people who sit on Netscape's corporate board of directors, and you will quickly find that these people do not exist because the Netscape corporation does not exist. Rather, the late, great Netscape is simply a brand name, commonly referred to as a "fictitious business name," and all of ODP's paid staff are on the payroll for AOL Time Warner. I know this because I have corresponded with Kent Walker, Esq., legal counsel for AOL Time Warner, regarding ODP licensing issues and various other legal issues that have arisen because of the questionable conduct of various ODP meta editors. -- NetEsq 22:08 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is no entity being called AOL since they merged with Time Warner. Netscape on the other hand was bought and is now a department (like Sega's AM Teams) or a subsidiary of AOL. Whatever you would call it, there must be an entity (which could be sold) that is "Netscape" as othererwise a "Copyright © 1998-2003 Netscape" isn't possible (Just owning a name isn't enough to use that as a copyright holder).
OK, this could need to be discussed, but why havn't you taken your time to "justify" your change back, like I have done for my change to it? -- The "Invisible Friend"
<<[T]here must be an entity (which could be sold) that is "Netscape" as othererwise a "Copyright © 1998-2003 Netscape" isn't possible (Just owning a name isn't enough to use that as a copyright holder).>>

As I stated above, Netscape is a fictitious business name which AOL Time Warner has registered with the State of California. Having done so, AOL Time Warner can use said fictitious business name to claim and/or register copyrights; I have done the same thing for various Web-based businesses that I own and operate under various fictitious business names. -- NetEsq 22:04 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, where to start? There is so much... I can't honestly say that I beleive Netesq has the intention to do NPOV editing, or that his reason to work on Wikipedia is anything else than just another step in his ongoing vendetta against ODP [1]. Hopefully, with enough people watching him, I think it could be made to work anyway.

Ok, let's see...

"owned by [[AOL Time Warner]]" is probably just an attempt to cash in on anti-AOL feelings. At http://dmoz.org/ it says "Copyright © 1998-2003 Netscape" and at http://dmoz.org/help/geninfo.html "The ODP is hosted and administered by Netscape Communication Corporation." also dmoz.org runs in Netscape netblock [2]. Also the history of Netscape can be seen on that page.

"after they had grown tired of [[link rot]] and slow processing of submissions to [[Yahoo!]]." seems to have been dropped from the history section. I think it's important to keep the reason behind the project.

"The original motivation for forming Gnuhoo/Newhoo/ODP was the frustration that many people experienced in getting their sites listed on Yahoo! However, Yahoo! has since implemented a paid submission service for timely consideration of Web site submissions, making free site submissions the primary advantage of ODP to submitters." seems to have gone.

"making the processing time for a site properly submitted to ODP anything between a few minutes to approximately six months." was changed to just "making the processing time for a site properly submitted to ODP approximately six months."

"which requires link back to ODP" was changed to "which requires an advertisement". It's an attrobution and a link back, not an advertisment.

"as well as a notice if the data has been altered" was dropped. It is also a requirement.

There is also the question about who uses/used ODP data and if they still do. That some search services first switched from purchased directory (for instance Looksmart) to free (ODP) and then back to Looksmart because Looksmart started paying sites to use their data.

"major competitor"? Sounds odd.

"ODPs policy is that ODP is made for searchers, not submitters." was removed. Why?

"leaving many submitters to wonder whether and when their site has been considered and rejected for inclusion in ODP. In response to ongoing criticism of this policy, ODP editors have set up a public forum where queries about site submission status can be posted." should be changed to pased tense, perhaps even moved to history.

"high level editing access at ODP in an effort to boost the link count" was changed to "high level editing access at ODP". Again the reason was removed.

"volunteer editors who openly dissent often find their editing priveleges removed" is simply not true. It's also interesting that Netesq quotes himself as source.

"changes in ODP's copyright policies that was made due to threats from Nintendo" was changed to "changes in ODP's copyright policies". Again the reason was removed.

"the number of editors contributing to ODP is often claimed to be exaggerated" was changed to "the number of editors contributing to ODP is exaggerated".

"an inactive period of four months" was changed to "an inactive period of three months"

"some former editors simply try reapply under an assumed identity, which may lead to even greater exagerration" was changed to "many former editors simply reapply under an assumed identity, leading to even greater exagerration"

"are by malcontents often claimed to be controversial" was changed to "are very controversial"

"removed for abusive editing practices or inability to work in a team" was changed to "removed for abusive editing practices"

"are at risk of losing their editing privileges are supposed to be contacted regarding this, but some ex-editors claim that this did not happen" was changed to "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"

"In the case of "good faith" abuse the editor is also told to watch it." was removed.

"prohibits any current ODP editors from discussing the specific reasons for specific editor removals" was changed to "prohibits any current ODP editors from discussing the reasons for specific editor removals"

"former ODP editors who have lost their editing privileges often claim to wonder" was changed to "former ODP editors who have lost their editing privileges are often left to wonder"

"There are some other restrictions" was changed to "In addition to the secrecy associated with ODP's editor removal procedures and ODP's internal forums, there are many other restrictions".

"editing privileges for each additional ODP category" was changed to "editing privileges in specific ODP categories"

Under the "Software" heading the reason ODP software isn't Open Source should be stated, i.e. that it's mixed with propietary softare from third parties.

Some changed was done under the "Spinoffs" heading that needs to be NPOVed.

* [http://www.shaneycrawford.com/writing/odp/ Open Directory Project and Digital Libraries] - Article by Shaney Crawford. under the "External links" heading was removed.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DMOZ/Archive_1&oldid=603339479"