Adopt Wikipedia model - or die

I was rejected last year as editor of the http://dmoz.org/Recreation/Collecting/Slot_Machines/ category.

This category currently contains 7 English and 3 Swedish language links, one of which contains a picture of three sunbathers on a yacht - and nothing else! There was also a dead link which I reported and has now been removed. The most active and information rich sites are not listed, presumably because the category has not been edited for the last four or five years.

For anyone interested in collecting vintage slot machines, it's a pretty weak resource. My own site about vintage British slot machines (not listed at dmoz) contains links to over 36 sites, divided into British, American and European (mostly French and German - Sweden does not have a history of slot machine manufacturing) categories. Each listing contains a brief factual description of what the site offers. These are not the only sites I could find - they were selected on merit, each offering something unique.

I'm prepared (grudgingly) to accept that I may not be the right person to edit this category, but given that for at least four years the Open Directory has failed to find someone who is, the whole project begins to look a bit hopeless.

Increasingly, the value of a dmoz listing is not because it's the first port of call for potential visitors, but because it slightly improves search engine status. I find myself using dmoz very infrequently these days in my web-surfing and suspect I'm only following a trend. I think the dmoz concept is fundamentally flawed and the directory is on the wane.

Human-edited directories will have advantages over search algorithms (at least until AI advances a bit) provided they can escape the curse of bureaucracy. But as it stands, dmoz looks like an arthritic dinosaur unable to adapt or keep up with the constantly evolving, mutating environment of the web. That relevant listings frequently take years to appear in the directory (by which time they may not be as relevant as they were originally) is laughable.

The Open Directory needs to adopt the truly open, fast expanding and vibrant Wikipedia model. Do away with assigned editors and throw category editing open to all web users. If it works so well for an encyclopaedia, I can't see why it shouldn't work for a directory.

(Perhaps this should be split off, starting at the preceding post.)

The Wikipedia model is moribund, if not dead. Although we link to Wikipedia categories from DMOZ, many of the categories are graffitied, or contain blatantly wrong information which is reinserted when edited out by sane contributors.

As for categories -- we don't have English (language) and Swedish (language) subcategories of Recreation/Collecting/Slot_Machines -- we have a category http://dmoz.org/Recreation/Collection/Slot_Machines and http://dmoz.org/World/Svenska/Nöjen_och_fritid/Samlande/Spelautomater/ , which seem to be parallel categories in English and Swedish. The misconception you've presented may be one of the reasons your application was rejected.

Hello Arubin,

Yes, maybe I should have posted this as a new topic.

I didn't mention any subcategories - I was just referring to the
http://www.dmoz.org/Recreation/Collecting/Slot_Machines/ category and it's
parallel Swedish language category (the only other language offered for some
reason).

Which is moribund - dmoz or Wikipedia? Perhaps we should run a poll.

In my (admittedly fairly limited) use of both, I've yet to find any
blatantly duff information on Wikipedia. I can't say the same of dmoz.

Which is moribund - bureaucracy or democracy?

The Wikipedia article on DMOZ has the most blatent falsehoods of any I've checked, although some (such as Baldwin Hills, California) just hide the confusion in the Talk area, in that different paragraphs refer to different geographical areas.

Not that I have anything against Wikipedia -- in fact, I intend to contribute to the Set Theory area, as soon as I can get my mind around which links in that category do not belong there.

We can argue about whether DMOZ has a beauracracy -- I think I've seen the difference described as DMOZ being organized anarchy and Wikipedia being just anarchy.

You plan to contribute to a moribund, dead encyclopaedia? Hmmn...

You prompted me to look up dmoz in Wiki. I'm astounded by the depth and quantity of information. Where else could I find more than I'll ever need to know about this niche of the internet? As for accuracy - on this subject I can be no judge. But there's a prominent warning top of page: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see discussion on the talk page".

This does not compare favourably with the impoverished little http://www.dmoz.org/Recreation/Coll.../Slot_Machines/ category that lead me into this thread.

pennymachines said:

But there's a prominent warning top of page: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see discussion on the talk page".

Click to expand...

Sometimes it's there, sometimes it isn't.

Moribundity is in the eye of the beholder. Project "X" is moribund, to me, if it doesn't empower me to do anything I want to do.

If what I wanted were personal website promotion, Wikipedia and the ODP would both be, if not moribund, at least susceptible to imminent assassination.

If my interest is in generating information to be given away freely (without concern for my proprietory rights in it, or artificial personal website promotion independent of my real-world personal reputation), then there are a number of lively online communities that (in my experience) give cordial welcome and active fellowship.

On the other hand, all of those communities have had ways of doing things that were, um, not as superiorly perfect as if I had been doing it all myself. (But that's what the founders and active members found worked most effectively for them. I don't really have a right to judge, until I've worn out a pair of their moccasins...) It's a trade-off: am I willing to work within the community to get the benefit of their tools and their distribution channel? (Personally, I'm easy: I can usually make those imperfect ways work well enough for my purposes... So I participate at the ODP as well as several other peer-reviewed volunteer communities.)

So what does it take to get in to the ODP community? Your list of links may be your most valuable recommendation. If (as I would hope) your intent is to add those to the ODP category, then mention that in your application.

On the liabilities side of the review (i.e. avoiding creating them in your application), you might want to review the ODP editors' guidelines to see what an ODP listing should look like (in long-neglected categories, that's not always the same as what the current listings look like). And look at the distinctions made between retail, business, and hobby sites, and between regional, language, and topical sites -- make sure your sample sites are appropriate (again, based on the guidelines, not necessarily what's already there.) Also, watch the speling grammar orthography & caPitalization.

The question of what's moribund doesn't seem so subjective to me.
An old railway line gone rusty from lack of trains is what I call moribund. Traffic volume is the gauge, and I see weeds growing between the lines at dmoz.

I don't really have the will to reapply to edit the category. I made a carefully composed application having diligently read the guidelines and received a standard rejection offering no further guidance but the suggestion that I try again sometime.

I was motivated to rejuvenate the editorship of a category which by all objective standards can be described as "moribund", because I wanted to see this slightly esoteric subject properly represented at dmoz. If someone else would take on the task (which doesn't look likely), so much the better.

But my main point is that I believe dmoz in its present form is invalid. I'm convinced the answer lies with the Wikipedia model - hour by hour dynamic input supplied by the open community of web users, resulting in an abundance of constantly updated information. Quality guidelines as rigid as those currently upheld can be applied by an open community of editors just as effectively. Of course, on a moment by moment basis, the quality will fluctuate slightly but is subject to continuous review and revision.

Far better this, than a directory scattered with unchecked dead links and cobwebby old neglected categories resulting from a system which actively discourages user input (by the effort required to offer any).

Do you know something about traffic or update volume that you're keeping secret from the rest of us?

As for user input, I'm not persuaded that people who are interested in editing, and able to edit, are being prevented by the current mechanism. I do know that many people who are either incompetent or malicious are being caught by the mechanisms, and ... I do know that at times we are not sufficiently suspicious -- they get in, and that malice or incompetence causes bigger harm than mere dead links.

Wikipedia may be your cup of tea, and if so -- get over there and do something constructive! Some ODP editors participate there, and that is their privilege. I've thought about it, and for ME it's (a) not likely to achieve anything I'm obsessing about doing, (b) does nothing I can't do better on my own insofar as I do it at all; (c) is way too poor and uneven quality to interest me (although across the boards it can seriously challenge the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropedia.); (d) tries to do something that I don't do as fluently as some other people do, while there are things I can do elsewhere, more fluently than many people that remain undone. But it's a grand experiment, and (not to mention the poor children formerly stuck with that Encarta rubbish-bin) the next generation of peer-reviewed volunteer projects will surely learn from it.

So I'll spend my spare time whining about its quality problems in the Wikipedia forums rather than helping Project Gutenberg out instead -- NOT!

>> If it works so well for an encyclopaedia, [like wikipedia] <<

For anything "controversial" I see constant editing, re-editing, and reversion of content.

For many topics I see a low quality of incomplete information, and some things that are just plain wrong.

I can see that adopting the wiki model for ODP would see the directory grow to 50 million links by the end of the year: 90% of it for viagra, porn, gambling, etc.

For anything "controversial" I see constant editing, re-editing, and reversion of content..

Click to expand...

And why not? Why assume it should be a static "fixed in stone" resource? This is its strength, not its weakness.

For many topics I see a low quality of incomplete information, and some things that are just plain wrong.

Click to expand...

I see this at dmoz.

I can see that adopting the wiki model for ODP would see the directory grow to 50 million links by the end of the year: 90% of it for viagra, porn, gambling, etc.

Click to expand...

Wiki isn't swamped with porn - it's a self regulating system. Links could be handled just as vigorously.


I'm not a Wiki fanatatic - nor am I trying to bash dmoz. I'm just stating what I believe to be its fatal weakness.
Unfortunately, opposition to any radical reform at dmoz - not least from the established editors would make change almost impossible anyway. I imagine it will lumber on for a bit before being overtaken by a new directory which adopts the more open and dynamic model. Time will tell.

>...opposition to any radical reform at dmoz - not least from the established editors would make change almost impossible anyway.

This is a truism. The editing community was built around people who wanted to do the things the ODP currently does, with a view towards the standards that were largely established by consensus -- that is, that's what the people who were doing the work agreed worked best.

>I imagine it will lumber on for a bit before being overtaken by a new directory which adopts the more open and dynamic model.

Ah, another instance of "open" and "dynamic" used as syntactic filler and semantic noise (i.e. buzzwords). You must be a marketroid in real life, or maybe a management major in school?

But ... "replaced"? More likely "supplemented" or "complemented." World culture is stronger for a bit of variety, and I'm not convinced that the last word on indexing human experience on the net has been spoken. Experience so far is that few indexes have been "supplanted", and more have been murdered by spammers. The community's greater concern for assassins than competition is, if not correct, at least amply justified by experience. And, of course, if you'd been anywhere close to right, Zeal would already have "supplanted" the ODP. (I just wish it were more effective as competition -- well, actually, as a surfer tool, which is what matters.)

>The editing community was built around people who wanted to do the things the ODP currently does

Of course, but users of dmoz may be more aware of its failings than compilers. Not that I'm suggesting editors don't use the directory themselves. Simply, that they're a comparative minority and already have an investment in it.

>You must be a marketroid in real life, or maybe a management major in school?

You could hardly be further from the truth. But I'll try to take it as a compliment. :icon_conf

>I'm not convinced that the last word on indexing human experience on the net has been spoken.

I'm sure you're right.

>Experience so far is that few indexes have been "supplanted", and more have been murdered by spammers.

I can see spam is a menace for any directory which is not under constant and active review. Again - Wiki is not swamped with spam or porn.

Thanks for alerting me to Zeal. How long has it been established?

I'd like to refer back to my first post now, because nobody has addressed the point that lead me into this. The http://dmoz.org/Recreation/Collecting/Slot_Machines/ category is lousy and has been so for several years. Why - if not for the reasons I've suggested?

... users of dmoz may be more aware of its failings than compilers.

In detail, certainly. That's how we GET compilers. Overall, not hardly: that "investment" is paid off in "experience" -- and THAT is not to be bought in other markets. In particular, experience leads to an understanding of inherent limitations. You'll have seen an example of this in the discussions of the problem of "accidentally deleted submittals" -- a prospect that understandably concerns many submitters: but I've reviewed tens of thousands of previously rejected sites. I KNOW how much (how little) of a problem it is; I KNOW what it DOES take to address that problem; I KNOW how much (how very little) better could be done even without allowing imperfecta as editors. So, no matter how concerned "users" (actually, submitters, who are not the same, although a tiny fraction of submitters may also be users) are, there really isn't comprehension of the problem that any experienced editor wouldn't know much better.

The spam problem is real for both WP and ODP; to control it, each project has laid out rules for participants. Those rules, accompanied by constant vigilance by public-spirited participants, "sorta work:" as you say, despite the ubiquitous menace, neither project has been overwhelmed. But -- and this is the really really important bit -- each project's rules, transplanted to the OTHER project, would be completely unworkable: not only would they fail to block the spam (without the context of the radical system on which they are based) they would make it impossible for participants to do what they needed to do.

I'm not a WP participant: Because I see that by and large they are spam-free, I deduce that their spam-control techniques work well enough -- for them.

Zeal is a few months younger than the ODP -- Check out their Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeal_(web) . Another completely different set of rules, which work well enough for the participants there. As well as the ODP rules? Apparently not -- but who knows how well it would have worked if the ODP hadn't been here first and sucked up so many of the potential editors?

I obviously think the ODP rules work better -- that's why I participate here rather than there. (Several years ago, I did consider participating there: I have nothing against that directory; I just decided to focus my indexing efforts. Are you not so sure? Check 'em out! Your mileage may differ.)

And as to your first post, you are right to focus on something specific that you know about, and focused enough for one person to do something about. The answer is -- the right person hasn't come along. Yet. The person with the full set of qualifications (social and grammatical as well as topical) needed.

I didn't see your application; I'm not convinced you aren't the right person. My experience is that a lot of people who think they turned in a pristine application concentrated on the "resume" portion to the neglect of the "character references" and "portfolio." If we can't trust you, it doesn't matter how clever you are. But if your portfolio (sample listings) is good enough, it doesn't matter how skimpy your resume is.

Think about it. What do you want to do? If you want to provide (indexing) information about your hobby, you've got multiple options. The ODP provides a server, a distribution channel, and editing tools -- at the expense of their own set of guidelines and constraints on goals. Zeal provides a server, not so much of a distribution channel, editing tools, and a different set of goals and guidelines. Your own site is limited by the distribution modes you can cobble together -- and the tools you can beg, borrow or steal. But the goals and guidelines are your own -- unless you start trying to attract a community to help you build the site, in which case you'll be further constrained by what the community will put up with.

I think the ODP is the best option. If you don't feel that way strongly enough to consider another application, then ... take the option you think is best. All these options aren't completely independent -- the links you add to some other site will make it easier for an ODP editor to find them (if and when we get someone who wants to build up that category.) And you know how the search engines use links.

I can think of several ODP editors who edit categories where the listed sites are simply an extension of the bookmaks file in their own web browser; these being hobbyist and informational non-commercial categories.

Lots of us (ahem) started out that way...

A Web directory is not an encyclopedia nor should it be. Both have failings but the solution to those failings is not to change one into the other.

I can see spam is a menace for any directory which is not under constant and active review. Again - Wiki is not swamped with spam or porn.

Click to expand...

It may or may not be swamped but my first foray into Wikipedia brought me to a page where someone had added their crappy (and completely unrelated) site as a related link. Turns out they'd done it in a half dozen places and, in several months, only one was ever noticed and removed. So, spam exists there. The fact that I tripped over it my first time in tells me either I'm extremely lucky or it's not uncommon. Like the ODP, it gets caught in areas where people are anal retentive about the content and missed for awhile in areas where perhaps people aren't quite so attentive. It's the nature of the models.

pennymachines -- why not set up an experiment?

Take an RDF feed, add some scripts and open it up as a wikipedia-style editable copy of DMOZ.

If it works, it'll grow faster and with higher quality than DMOZ. People will notice, editors will migrate to it as a better way to achieve their aims; Google and other ODP licensees will notice and take a feed from you instead.

Before you know it, you'll have supplanted the ODP with a more vibrant and modern approach.

If it works, that is. If you believe it would, it's for you to start the ball rolling. Good luck!

Thanks for taking the trouble to give such thoughtful reply to my comments (Hutcheson esp.).

I take on board some of what you say and may gee myself up to re-apply if nobody else takes up the challenge in the next few months.

Meantime I'll contribute to Zeal.

Motsa -
I wasn't suggesting a web directory should be an encyclopedia.
I flagged a specific page at dmoz which is not up to scratch. Out of interest, can you give a specific page at Wikipedia that contains Spam?

Sunanda -
Maybe I'll try that too - when I have a moment - and figure out how to do all that...