Could ODP learn from Wikipedia?

I recently contributed three new pages, and other small contributions to wikipedia.org, for those unfamilar with it, it bills itself as:-
"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate open content encyclopedia..."
Although I made a few editing errors, mainly technical, in my contributions, these were rapidly corrected by others, in a very straightforward way with no fuss, no recriminations, and no negative criticism. The opposite in fact, a welcome message from another user, and a friendly helpful hint or two. I learnt quickly as a result, my expert input was retained, and I came away feeling I had made a positive contribution which had been readily accepted, and would return when time permitted to fill more missing gaps.
Compare this with dmoz, most of the forum posts seem to be complaints, even when posed as questions, and most of the answers sound quite negative, demeaning or condescending, even when phrased relatively kindly.
Could ODP have something to learn from Wikipedia?
For example instead of rejecting hopeful editors, edit their suggestions so that they learn how the reviews "should" be done. This would also speed up the processing of sumissions, and train new editors at the same time.
New editors would learn to feel their efforts were valued rather than rejected without explanation, the rather aggresive and adversarial tone in the forums may become more positive and constructive.
Most of the articles contributed to Wikipedia have required research, expert knowledge and original thought, perhaps I underestimate the difficulties of the task, but reviewing and editing suggestions wouldn't appear to me to be as demanding as creating original content. I don't intend this last comment to sound as though it is belittling the skills and efforts of ODP editors, rather to point out that there may be many highly skilled and industrious potential editors out there who could and would make a valuable and useful contribution to the ODP if given encouragement and a more positive and friendly reception.
Webmasters too could be given more respect. There must be many who have spent hundreds or thousands of hours creating original content who seem to feel judged by their forum comments, that their sites have not been recognised, described or categorised with commensurate care and attention.
I guess that William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens, if webmasters of would-be editors, would get frustrated waiting for their sites to be reviewed, and their editor applications to be rejected, by others of lesser ability.
For those not familiar, please take a look at Wikipedia, and perhaps add your contibution before responding to this posting. Perhaps take a break from your busy reviewing schedule, and see if you come back with a lighter, and more positive attitude.
Your thoughts?

I agree - I think that wikipedia is a great project, as are other volunteer-built databases such as Zeal, Musicmoz and Chefmoz. However, the single factor that is currently only an issue for dmoz is that of large scale and how to manage it. Most open-source volunteer-driven efforts run very well when relatively small. However, with increasing size comes increasing profile, increasing submissions and an increase in the required workload for the volunteer workforce.

The example with wikipedia would be perhaps if it was as well known as dmoz and receiving 1000 article submissions per day. How many volunteer editor hours would it take to correct all the errors in the submissions to keep the database up to date and of high quality? Probably a relatively small 'hard-core' of editors would have the motivation to put in a large number of hours and the effective 'unreviewed queue' would start to get longer and longer. That's what happened with dmoz - there are probably around 10,000 active editors but a large number of reviews are due to a small proportion of this number.

Zeal is a similar example to wikipedia - currently all submissions get reviewed in a pretty short space of time - that's great, but then Zeal has a far smaller profile than dmoz, none of the commercial categories have an add URL link and you have to pass a test before being able to submit a site. If Zeal received the same number of daily submissions as dmoz, its review times would also become longer and longer.

It seems to be relatively straight-forward to build this kind of system on a small scale (caveat: I've never done it!) - just as it's possible for one webmaster to moderate a forum that only gets twenty posts a day. However, I have yet to see a system that copes better on the large scale that dmoz now operates on. I'm not saying in any way that dmoz is perfect - we'd all like review times to be quicker and quality of listings to improve - but no-one's yet found a better model that keeps all the key advantages of dmoz whilst also solving its problems. Hopefully the new server upgrades will solve some of the recent teething troubles at least.

It's really helpful to receive outside suggestions in forums like Resource Zone - plenty of senior editors read them and dmoz policies are regularly discussed in the internal forums, so don't feel as though you're being ignored!

The common suggestions, such as paid submission or paid review, have previously been rejected because of barring content-rich but financially-poor sites or introducing more reasons for editors to abuse their position. Similarly, reducing the standard required to become an editor has been rejected because if an editor edits poorly then someone else has to go in afterwards and clear up the mess. Dmoz policy is to maintain a high standard for the users rather than just listing as many sites as possible.

However, someone's going to come up with a better solution than the status quo - life's like that and technology improves. It may as well be in a community such as this as anywhere else. Keep coming with the useful discussions!

Could wikipedia learn from ODP?

>>For example instead of rejecting hopeful editors, edit their suggestions so that they learn how the reviews "should" be done. This would also speed up the processing of sumissions, and train new editors at the same time.<<

This would allow people with no motivation other than listing their site (and perhaps deleting or stifling their competitors) actually get accepted. There's plenty of information out there about how we'd like applications to be done. No hand-holding is likely to occur.

Lawrence: you make some very good points about encouraging editors rather than discouraging them. That's all true.

Inside, the OPD is a very friendly community, and lots of advice is available to new (and old) editors. The barrier to getting in isn't very high. A lot of the questions and complaints you mention are not from people trying to become editors (though some are). They are from people who want a volunteer editor to do work for them now.

I spend some time over at Wikipedia, and even done a little bit of editing. It is a great resource. But it doesn't have some of the pressures the ODP has. To understand (if not condone!) some of the ODP approach, consider this scenario....

Next week Google embraces Wikipedia, adds it as a new tab "Web / Images / Groups Directory / News / Encyclopaedia"

Immediately, there is a (real or imagined) advantage to being mentioned in WP. Thousands of webmasters scramble to edit WP articles, adding (usually in completely inappropriate places) links to their sites.

WP already has some locked pages, and it quickly moves to lock most of them. All changes now have to be approved by an editor.

The poor editor looking after the page on penis enlargement (in the interest of research, I checked: there is such a page) has hundreds of page-change requests to wade through. Most he can delete straightaway. Most get resubmitted within days with minor word changes.

The submitters get more and more subtle. It might take 20 minutes to review a paragraph on Neolithic stone tools for ritual penile elongation (and the impressive-looking research paper it references), before the editor realises it's just another bit of lying spam of no value to the pedia.

Meanwhile, over at WebMasterWorld, people are bitterly complaining that their monograph on "Self-aggrandizement at the Court of Louis XVI" has been waiting a year to be referenced. They've tried emailing the editor once a week, and got no reply or a reply saying "no": Therefore, the whole Wikipedia project is not just irrelevant to the web, but corrupt and self-serving too. The only way to fix it, they insist is paid editors who write what webmasters pay them to write. And then the trolls join in.

The genital enhancement editor resigns, and suddenly the fact that those pages haven’t been updated for a month becomes additional evidence of the failure of wikipedia.

Suddenly, you are extraordinarily unpopular with a vocal crowd who see you as directly stopping them making money.

You see something of this already at wikipedia (just look at Discuss This Page for the home page), but imagine it multiplied by 1,000,000.

I seem to remember someone started a Wiki web directory. I can't remember the URL, but I don't think it became very popular.

http://www.3apes.com/

Founded by Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia.

Thanks tuisp, that's what I was looking for.

>>The common suggestions, such as paid submission or paid review, have previously been rejected because of barring content-rich but financially-poor sites or introducing more reasons for editors to abuse their position. <<

That and it would completely violate our Social Contract.

>> most of the forum posts seem to be complaints, even when posed as questions<<

Yep. You see webmasters/SEOs are operating under the mistaken notion that DMOZ exists to serve them. It doesn't and never has. That's reality. Unfortunately, it seems that most webmasters/SEOs refuse to accept reality, and so they whine and complain as if the Directory owes them something.

To put it in real terms... When you donate blood, they first determine if you're a suitable donor, then they type you. Imagine if millions of people suddenly decided they wanted to be typed for free, so started calling the Red Cross hoping to make appointments. Obviously the Red Cross would not be able to see everyone as soon as they'd like; but as long as they were able to supply hospitals with plasma* they'd be doing exactly what they set out to do. Would those would be "donors" have any right to complain because they wanted their blood typed and the Red Cross didn't accommodate them on demand? Heck no. In fact, they should be ashamed of themselves for trying to exploit a noble cause for their own benefit.

* In ODP terms this means providing the Directory's users with content rich sites on any given subject. It does not mean reviewing every submission in "x" number of days/weeks/months.

Regarding editor applications... I can't imagine ever volunteering for something only to become hostile because my application was rejected. I'd just move on to something else.

>>I guess that William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens, if webmasters of would-be editors, would get frustrated waiting for their sites to be reviewed<<

Again, if their expectations were aligned with reality, they'd have nothing to be frustrated about. Should I be frustrated because the paper boy didn't leave me a pile of gold bars this morning?

Great post, Sunanda.

Yep. You see webmasters/SEOs are operating under the mistaken notion that DMOZ exists to serve them. It doesn't and never has.

Click to expand...

I think you are making some BIG asumptions and are possibly the reason for statements like

Compare this with dmoz, most of the forum posts seem to be complaints, even when posed as questions, and most of the answers sound quite negative, demeaning or condescending, even when phrased relatively kindly.

Click to expand...

Webmaster are also humans who use the directory to gather information. In fact, Webmasters probably use the directory for information gathering more than most!

That's reality. Unfortunately, it seems that most webmasters/SEOs refuse to accept reality, and so they whine and complain as if the Directory owes them something.

Click to expand...

That again is "negative, demeaning or condescending". Perhaps it is some editors that need to face "reality" and stop their complaining (after all they did voulenteer) and wake up to the fact that DMOZ is not the perfect directory and has many issues which should be addressed. Unfortunately each time these issues are raised, they get brushed aside and the person who (dares) raise the issue(s) is belittled, replied to in a curt rude manner, told to stop complaining, told to become an editor themsleves, totally ignored, or the most common "We are unpaid voulenteers!" This is all because the one who raises the issue(s) is a Webmaster. DMOZ needs to realize that *most* (non Webmaster) users of the directory could NOT care less about DMOZ and will vote with their feet rather than complain or email suggestions.



Dave

Hey, you're listed now, see here.

Courtesy (not mine, again) of 'negative, demeaning or condescending' editors. I'm one of this lot, and proud to be. Congrats

I am VERY happy that this issue has finally been resolved. Please pass on my thanks and take a pat on the back yourself from me.

Courtesy (not mine, again) of 'negative, demeaning or condescending' editors.

Click to expand...

Now now, nobody ever said ALL editors fit this description

Submitters really do not have to understand ODP in any way shape or form other than realizing that they aren't entitled to a listing and, if listed, not entitled to a permanent listing.

>>I think you are making some BIG asumptions <<

The hell I am. Look around you... Whine, whine, whine.

>>In fact, Webmasters probably use the directory for information gathering more than most!<<

And you base this on?

>>That again is "negative, demeaning or condescending". <<

No, that's reality.

>>DMOZ needs to realize that *most* (non Webmaster) users of the directory could NOT care less about DMOZ<<

Which is why they use it? Makes perfect sense.

Perhaps it is some editors that need to face "reality" and stop their complaining (after all they did voulenteer)

Let's see, I volunteered to edit and create the most comprehensive, non-pay directory of the internet so that people can find what they are looking for without wading through the endless spam, deadlinks and garbage that a search engine tends to provide them.

That is the reality of my time with the ODP, and those are my priorities. I will complain about anything that gets in the way of that, because that is not what I volunteered for.

I hope the difference is clear.

It's not perfect yet, which is why we're all still working at it. We know there are issues, but most of the issues we read on fora seem to be more related to why a particular person's site didn't get listed in the way they want, rather than constructive criticism. If someone comes up with a suggestion that we haven't heard many times before, believe me, they get taken seriously.