Talk:DMOZ/Archive 2

Talk:Open Directory Project Talk:Open Directory Project/Archive 1 Talk:Open Directory Project/Temp

discussion
Hi guys. I'm willing to act as a moderator in this dispute if all parties are willing. I edit two tiny ODP categories: my hometown and one for UFO photo galleries (er... don't ask...), but I don't have particularly strong opinions about the ODP either way. Are you willing to have me as a moderator? -- Stephen Gilbert 21:40 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Since I suggested you as a moderator, I will be happy to defer to your decisions. -- NetEsq 21:46 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Acceptable from my side -- The "Invisible Friend"

No need to defer, exactly. I'll serve as a mediator to help all parties develop their own solution, not an arbitrator who hands down a decision. -- Stephen Gilbert


 * I stand corrected. In any event, I would welcome the intercession of a third party, such as yourself, who might help end the current edit war.  To that end, I will defer to any solutions you might propose, be they procedural or substantive.  -- NetEsq 00:37 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, let's get started. I've archived all of the debate at Talk:Open Directory Project/Archive 1, and I request that discussion over article specifics cease until we can determine the basic conflict. I suggest a couple of ground rules:


 * 1) A ceasefire in the edit war: no editing the article until we reach a solution. We'll set up a copy of the article at Open Directory Project/Temp to work on.
 * 2) An assumption of good faith: assume that all parties involved in this dispute are trying to improve this article and have good intentions. Don't post insults or accusations.

Reviewing the debate, I think it boils down to this. Ambivalenthysteria, Liftarn and "Invisible Friend" believe that Netesq is slanting the article towards an anti-ODP position. Netesq believes that these people are removing criticisms of the ODP that need to be covered. Stemming from this main conflict are sub-issues such as article structure, the nature of Netscape, and so on.

If all parties agree on the ground rules, I'll lock the article temporarily with an explanation at the top of the page and set up the draft copy. Then we can step through the problems one by one. -- Stephen Gilbert 04:12 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm in. Let's do it. -- NetEsq 04:22 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

As said, accepted from my side, but just for note: Delirium also believes that "This has turned into basically an anti-ODP rant" and Alpdpedia thinks "the version recently posted by 212.202.3.5 is far better than earlier versions, and the one that netesq has reverted to." Angela also made NPOV attemps. -- The "Invisible Friend" 09:47 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Noted. Both Delirium and Angela have both said that they prefer not to get into it, but they're welcome to change their minds.

I've protected the article and set up the draft. I think the best way to proceed would be to set up an article outline and then tackle each section one at a time. Point/counter-point is a poor option; it's jarring to read and people often feel the need to write counter-counter-points. A better option is to introduce the subject sympathetically -- in this case, write about the uncontroversial facts of the ODP (it's a web directory, etc) and what it claims -- and mention that there is controversy involved without going into great detail. A specific section is then dedicated to examining the criticisms and controversy of the project. As with all Wikipedia articles, if the subsections get too long, we can spin them off into separate articles. Scientology is a good example of this structure.

I have to go for now. If someone could suggest an outline (introduction and history are two good starting sections) we can gofrom there. -- Stephen Gilbert 14:35 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to carry out this discussion on the Talk page for the new draft? -- NetEsq 14:59 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It makes much more sense: Talk:Open Directory Project/Temp. -- Stephen Gilbert 21:02 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, mediated discussion is over. Play nice! -- Stephen Gilbert 06:52, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * And already there have been some controversial things added under the "Allegations that ODP editors are removed for criticizing ODP's policies" heading... Things like "editors who openly dissent often find their editing privileges removed". Also the section about The Cunctator is written so it may sound like the two events described are somehow connected. // Liftarn


 * I have reverted to the mediated version implemented by Stephen Gilbert. Everyone had plenty of time to object to this version while the regular article was locked, so if you wish to make any changes now, those changes should be agreed upon here on the talk page before they are implemented in the actual article.  Alternatively, we can lock the live article and return to a mediated discussion. -- NetEsq 16:07, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * As you can see above the mediated discussion is over and we are all (including you) asked to "play nice". The changes I've made are all small and uncontroversial [1]. // Liftarn

The changes suggested were:

"links owned by AOL Time Warner" was changed to "links run by Netscape Corporation (owned by AOL Time Warner)". This was already discussed and agreed upon, but it somehow got overlooked. See http://dmoz.org/help/geninfo.html#runs

Under "License and Requirements" I added the text "because they are based on the draft standard and work on making it standard compliant progresses slowly." to explain why they are "corrupted".

Under "Allegations of abusive editing practices" I added ", altough little evidence of this has been shown.". Even if it's true it may be a bit POV so it may be left out.

"high level editing access at ODP." was changed to "high level editing access at ODP in an effor to boost the number of links.". Also this is an uncontroversial change.

I also removed "purportedly" from "grass roots principles on which ODP was purportedly based.". Either it is or it isn't.

Under "Editor Removal Procedures" I added the old text from ODPSS.

Under "Size of the directory and number of editors" I made some minor changes and NPOVing. For instance ODP never claim the directory is maintained by NN editors.

Under "Software" I added "That ODP's software isn't open sourced is because it relies on third party software that isn't open source.". Come to think of it it should perhaps be noted that some part of ODPs softare indeed has been open sourced.

I don't expect that Netesq will ever answer this as he now have no use for discussion as it's bussiness as usual here. // Liftarn


 * Is the addition of the NPOV label really necessary? What is it you are claiming is not NPOV?


 * Yes, I think it's necessary. The article is ofcourse a lot better now when compared to when Netesq ruled supreme, but it's still POV in may ways. // Liftarn

Marking a page with a dispute notice is: (a) a temporary measure, and (b) a note stating that there is an ongoing conflict over the article. The article still needs to be improved, but that doesn't merit a notice. Just work on the article and AssumeGoodFaith, Liftarn. -- Stephen Gilbert 06:30, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * As you may or may not be aware of there is a certain user that doesn't allow anybody else to do any editing in the article so between the POV message and an edit war I choose the message mainly because I don't have the time to get into a pointless edit war. // Liftarn

What you have to realize is that both of you have strong biases on each side of this subject. This means that it will take a lot of discussion if either of you wants to do major work on article. If you feel you don't have time for this, you both should avoid this page and work on something less controversial, and let less passionate parties work on this one. -- Stephen Gilbert


 * The difference is that I really try to write an unbiased article that gives views from all sides while Netesq is only interested in using it as a platform for his crusade against ODP. Earlier attempts to reach an agreement with him has been fruitless. He simply will not discuss changes unless he is forced to do so. // Liftarn


 * I just reverted the changes made by Liftarn. They were not agreed upon prior to implementation, and they did nothing to improve the article.  Moreover, all of the changes proposed by Liftarn have been discussed previously, which is how the mediated version of this article came into existence, and claims to the contrary that are made in bad faith cannot form the basis for further discussion.  To wit, "Netesq is only interested in using [the article] as a platform for his crusade against ODP."  It is impossible for me to interpret such an assertion as anything but a personal attack, and I am unable to respond in kind without violating Wikiquette. -- NetEsq 10:44, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that you are more interested in continuing an edit war and pushing your agenda rather than trying to get the article neutral. The changed I have made have been discussed earlier and many of them agreed upon even if they didn't make it into the final article. However the mediated article is a basis for further development. I have tried to discuss the changes, but you have always ignored my invitations and instead have focosed your effort in keeping up an edit war. Why you are interested in the article if blindingly obvious for anyone who know where you come from. // Liftarn