Adopt Wikipedia model - or die

Chainki

If you're interested in a wiki approach to the Open Directory Project you can check out Chainki. It's a fork of the ODP created in July 2006 (using a database dump from late May 2006) and it runs on MediaWiki just like Wikipedia.

I discovered it today and I'm quite pleased with it. I'll be doing all my future category edits there.

Chanki

It looks nice now but I wonder if it will be abused. Parts of wilkipedia are disputed and such. I worry that people will bend this to their will be deleting competitors or moving them to inappropriate categories.

Of course, some accuse ODP editors of doing this already. All I can do is that this doesn't happen to either of these directories. After all, what use is a directory if it is inaccurate or warped to unfairly benefit certain groups?

Garrick

some accuse ODP editors of doing this already.

Click to expand...

Yes, but like all ODP users, those that accuse are always urged to submit a confidential abuse report with details, and they hardly ever do so.
I'll take this chance to remind everyone that editorial abuse is taken very seriously indeed, and editors found to be abusive usually lose their accounts.
Both external and internal abuse reports are seen and investigated only by meta-editors and/or admins, to preserve confidentiality for the reporter. Likewise, any decision to remove an editor for abuse is reached only after careful consideration and discussion by metas.
When the technical problems are fixed, abuse can be reported via the link at the top right of every category page, but please note that just because a site is not listed does not necessarily mean an editor has been abusive. Reports based on such mistaken assumptions are unhelpful, whereas a fact-based report will always be taken seriously.

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...

I'm constantly amazed at the number of subjects and the level of detail in Wikipedia. However, to say that it is not swamped with spam or porn is not correct. Depends on what subject/topic you are looking at.

For example, in my other life, I am an administrator in a high school. Our school's listing is constantly being changed by our erstwhile students. Some of the changes are appropriate--many are not. But it takes constant supervision to make sure that inappropriate comments are removed.

I've also seen any number of submissions to the DMOZ categories I edit in which the descriptions are nothing but repetitions of keywords and marketing hype. Those submitted descriptions really tell nothing of the true content (or value) of the site itself. It takes considerable time and effort to re-do those descriptions (assuming they meet the site meets the guidelines and deserves to be listed).

Now, imagine a free-for-all setting in which anyone (including your competitors) can submit and modify listings. Doesn't look like a pretty picture to me.

It may take some time for DMOZ submissions to be reviewed. But it's been my experience that the DMOZ editors take their task very seriously and that the listings they do include are accurate and truly descriptive of the site. That's worth a lot in my book.

wikiweb has been going for a while and one can see one of its disadvantages which is balance. The Search Engine Optimisation has 198 entries, the Arts sections has 188. Wiki-style add-your own entries directories serve those people who know enough or have the time enough to promote their own sites.

Obviously anyone could add sites but it does show the imbalance between people who understand the internet and recognise that promotion is everything and those to whom the promotion activities come a poor third to following their interests and providing information about it. The prime concern of most Folk dancers is going dancing, somebody in the group might produce a website inbetween times, but very few folk dancers in their right mind would bother promoting it when they could be dancing instead.

Chainki is, unlike wikiweb, not starting from scratch as it has taken the ODP as a starting point. It will be interesting to see after a year which areas have expanded and the quality of those listings.

There is also a bit philosophical consideration - the ODP lists a lot of businesses and being listed in the ODP is seen as a Good Thing because it is a good resource. I edit in non-commercial areas but am not upset to see another editor adding commercial sites elsewhere because I know it is being done within the guidelines to build up a complete resource. With a wiki directory, I would feel that any Tom, Dick or Harry could come in and add their site and disappear, taking advantage of the hard work put in by the more altruistic wiki-members.

regards

I would feel that any Tom, Dick or Harry could come in and add their site and disappear...

Click to expand...

This happens a lot at ODP too, and it's not a totally bad thing as long as the sites they add are listed according the guidelines.

Of course it is disappointingly selfish that they care only about their own site and not about building the category with other sites, but if 100 people behave in this way, theoretically the directory has grown by 100 sites, so ishtar's point is correct. But the qualifier ("as long as the sites they add are listed according the guidelines") is the key, and in my experience it very rarely applies.

For a start, if a new editor adds only their own site, they usually do not even bother to read or apply the Guidelines, so someone else then has to rewrite the title and/or description. In many cases the site may not be listable anyway, or perhaps it is in the wrong category, so more time needs to be spent re-reviewing or moving it.

Overall it is short-sighted, self-interested, and an inefficient use of scarce editor resources for someone to join solely to list their site.

so when can we expect DMOZ to be back up running? Or is the answer still "we don't know, stop asking!"

The Announcement itself explains that it will be updated when there is more information.

>> The most active and information rich sites are not listed, <<

You have suggested them to the category though?

You could at least do that much to help...

Yes, I did, but they fell on deaf ears.

Interesting to revisit this thread which I started back in August 2005. I assumed it had faded into oblivion by now.

I was curious to see if the http://www.dmoz.org/Recreation/Collecting/Slot_Machines/ category had been updated or edited in the meantime. Apart from a dead link I reported last year, it hadn't. The six slot machine links are even less use now - the Liberty Belle Saloon sold its historical collection last Summer.

pennymachines said:

I was curious to see if the http://www.dmoz.org/Recreation/Collecting/Slot_Machines/ category had been updated or edited in the meantime. Apart from a dead link I reported last year, it hadn't. The six slot machine links are even less use now - the Liberty Belle Saloon sold its historical collection last Summer.

Click to expand...

That alone would not make the website of less use. Actually if that is the only site that provides information about the collection, I would suspect that it is just as useful, and perhaps even more so than before.

You have a point there DogBows. It's a virtual tour of a slot museum that no longer exists but maybe they'll leave it up.
Incidentally, the collection is covered in much greater depth in a book they produced: Slot Machines, America's Favorite Gaming Device.