DMOZ Editor Corruption Shock (3)

I thought I made my point clearly enough the first time I wrote about the relentless campaign of vague, repetitive and unsubstantiated accusations thrown at volunteer editors in the Open Directory Project.

Unfortunately, subsequent insulting comments to this blog showed that those making the allegations had not even read that post, or had missed its message completely. So I tried again, pointing out the obvious flaws in their copycat claims. Sadly, this was equally ineffective, and I continue to receive (and read elsewhere) the same tiresome arguments and insults. I will present one such email later in this post.

But first I'll present the facts again, very simply and in large friendly letters this time.

1. It is always free to suggest a site to ODP/DMOZ ... why pay?
2. DMOZ is not a listing service. Suggested sites are just one of many resources for volunteer editors, who are the only people who can list sites in the directory.
3. Nobody can "get" a site listed, no matter what they might promise hopeful webmasters.
4. Anybody can easily check such claims: is the person named as an editor in that DMOZ category or anywhere else?

• If not, they simply cannot do what they promise.
• If they are listed as an editor, then they already know that requesting or accepting any form of payment will lead to permanent closure of their account. Besides, sites which are the subject of editor bribes (and even attempted bribes) are permanently banned.

Yes, that's right, the sites are permanently banned - even if they are involved in just an offer to pay.

But you don't have to take my word for this. See if you can find any DMOZ listings which have resulted from the thousands of payment offers made on various freelancer sites and webmaster forums.

• If you do find such a listing, you know where to report it. (Of course if you believe that the entire worldwide volunteer community is engaged in a colossal cover-up over a single site, there's not much point in any discussion.)
• If you don't find any such listings, then obviously these ineffectual offers don't "prove" editorial abuse. All they "prove" is that many people don't listen.

As promised, here's part of a typical email I received a few weeks ago, (as usual from "Anonymous"):

"The abuse is real, and it is endemic, and yes it has been going on for years. And I myself has (sic) used the 'report abuse' several times but the email goes into a black hole and you hear nothing further about it. Your arguments about the difficulties of sustaining such corruption are absurd. As soon as a whole bureaucratic structure gets sufficiently corrupted, you think a report to the supervisor is going to fix things? And the charges people are making are far from vague as you claim. Just read the talk: http://www ......."

Let's examine the assertions one at a time.

"The abuse is real, and it is endemic, and yes it has been going on for years."

Three confident statements of "fact", based on who-knows-what invention, supposition, misunderstanding or other faulty logic. We'll never know, because like his fellow campaigners, he doesn't bother to justify his assertion.
I could just as confidently say "The writer of the above letter is almost comically short, with terrible skin and a tendency to waddle."

"And I myself has used the 'report abuse' several times but the email goes into a black hole and you hear nothing further about it."

That dramatic "black hole" is yet another invention, based solely on the fact that he did not receive a reply. Apparently he didn't bother to read the Abuse Reporting FAQ, so I'll quote the relevant part of it here:

"Note: Even if you provide an e-mail address you will not be sent any information: on the report's status or otherwise."

Naturally a reporter may wish to know that his report has been received, so there is a simple way of checking the status. It's described very clearly on the form, but presumably "Anonymous" did not read that bit either.

"Your arguments about the difficulties of sustaining such corruption are absurd."

He is entitled to that assessment, of course, but without justification or explanation it carries no more weight than if I said "And you can't even write properly, so there."
Gratuitous insults do not form an argument.

"As soon as a whole bureaucratic structure gets sufficiently corrupted, you think a report to the supervisor is going to fix things?"

This is unrelated to DMOZ, because there is not "a supervisor", and so the analogy is meaningless.
Abuse reports are read by any number of the most experienced and trusted volunteers, and every genuine report is then appropriately investigated, also by any number of them. [See my earlier comment about irrational conspiracy theories which seek to implicate a huge worldwide community.]

And so we come to his closing argument, which I addressed in the first half of this post.

"And the charges people are making are far from vague as you claim.

Just read the talk: http://www .......".

One last time: the only "proof" of this type of editorial abuse is to show that a specific DMOZ listing has resulted from a specific editor accepting or requesting payment.

Along with other forms of editorial abuse, such actions have never been tolerated, as many removed editors can confirm.

Life is Like a Pickle Jar

An uncharacteristically short post today, and possibly a little corny, but I'll put two cartoons at the end to make it worth your while stopping by.

I've had a pretty rough couple of months, one way and another, with my health, enthusiasm, self-worth and energy taking a beating in a number of areas in my life, all at the same time. So when this parable was related to me by a colleague who has experienced more than his own share of setbacks, it certainly struck a chord. Apparently it is known as "The Pickle Jar Theory of Time Management", but I think it has a wider application in terms of keeping balance in life, and "not sweating the small stuff" (another useful cliche).

Here's how it was explained to me:

A teacher places a large empty pickle jar on his desk at the front of the class, and puts in as many rocks as he can.

He asks the class if the jar is full, and of course they reply that it is.

He then picks up several handfuls of pebbles and adds as many as he can to the jar. The class again agrees that the jar is now full.

Next, he pours in some sand. Quite a lot of sand, in fact, until it reaches the top of the jar. "Is it full now?" "Yes!!"

But no, because he picks up a big jug of water and proceeds to empty it into the jar.

I'm sure you get the point: make room for the big things in life first (health, happiness, family, friends etc). Less important things will just have to fit around them, and if there ends up being enough room for some of the really unimportant stuff, fair enough.

But if you start with the sand, there simply won't be room for all those rocks.

And now those cartoons I promised, either or both of which may or may not apply to me.

Leadership, Loutism or Blatant Bullying? (2)

When I discussed this issue 3 months ago, I was speaking more or less in the abstract, because it is a subject about which I feel very strongly, and a behaviour I witness far too frequently, in all its many forms.

However, since writing that post, I have unexpectedly found myself in the position of victim, whereas I have always considered myself strong enough to withstand and even expose this sort of unacceptable behaviour.

But as I wrote:

In such situations we all have a responsibility to stand up to bullies and those who similarly misuse their authority. If someone stands alone they are likely to be harassed, ridiculed, or even dismissed from the organisation.

Unfortunately I seem to have an unerring instinct for undertaking battles I can't possibly win, usually on behalf of people less foolhardy than myself. In popular mythology it is frequently possible to defeat overwhelming odds, but the reality is more prosaic, and Goliath usually wins.

Nobody likes to lose - it is always unpleasant and frequently humiliating, but when the winner is a bully and a person in authority, there is a shameful tendency for them to continue kicking the person who is down, knowing there is nobody who can stop them. It's hard to believe that they derive any pleasure or satisfaction from this (although anything is possible), so this post-victory intimidation is presumably in order to make it even more clear to everyone that any similar opposition would be very ill-advised, and the consequences deeply unpleasant.

Unfortunately for me, such a reprehensible misuse of power makes me even more determined to fight back, even if Resistance is Futile.