June Bugeye
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2
Well, it seems that DMOZ has been experiencing unspecified hardware problems for more than a week. More than a week with editors unable to log in; more than a week with no updates whatsoever; more than a week without any ability to explain the problem or offer an estimated time for it to be remedied.
I think this will be remembered as the week that DMOZ died.
Even if the servers ever come back on line (which no one from DMOZ has been willing to predict), I think that what remaining credibility the directory had left is now gone.
The open directory model is, however, too valuable to the Internet community to be lost, or more specifically, to allow it to be discredited by the fall of DMOZ. I think the critical error with DMOZ was the exclusivity inherent in its editorial process. Anyone reading these threads has to be appalled by the colossal arrogance of the moderators and senior editors.
Have a problem? It must be, according to them, that the failing is yours, not theirs. Has DMOZ erred? Impossible, according to them, DMOZ policy is such and such, and it is inconceivable that the individuals who administer those policies are anything but infallible.
Perhaps the time has come to try to marry the wiki approach championed by Wikipedia, with the structure of an online directory. It would, I realise, have to be organised in a way that is more resistant to abuse (since a web directory would tempt more abuse than an enclopedia), but I do not believe that this is beyond the skills of dedicated people. At the very least, it would have to be an improvement over the tyranny of the DMOZ editor-priesthood.
I'm sad to see DMOZ go the way of its dinosaur-like mascot, but, like the dinosaur, it has had its day, and it has died because of its inherent inability to adapt.
I am going to write to the Wikipedia Foundation, and encourage them to create a new online directory to pick-up where DMOZ left off. I hope anyone reading this forum will join me in doing so.
I think this will be remembered as the week that DMOZ died.
Even if the servers ever come back on line (which no one from DMOZ has been willing to predict), I think that what remaining credibility the directory had left is now gone.
The open directory model is, however, too valuable to the Internet community to be lost, or more specifically, to allow it to be discredited by the fall of DMOZ. I think the critical error with DMOZ was the exclusivity inherent in its editorial process. Anyone reading these threads has to be appalled by the colossal arrogance of the moderators and senior editors.
Have a problem? It must be, according to them, that the failing is yours, not theirs. Has DMOZ erred? Impossible, according to them, DMOZ policy is such and such, and it is inconceivable that the individuals who administer those policies are anything but infallible.
Perhaps the time has come to try to marry the wiki approach championed by Wikipedia, with the structure of an online directory. It would, I realise, have to be organised in a way that is more resistant to abuse (since a web directory would tempt more abuse than an enclopedia), but I do not believe that this is beyond the skills of dedicated people. At the very least, it would have to be an improvement over the tyranny of the DMOZ editor-priesthood.
I'm sad to see DMOZ go the way of its dinosaur-like mascot, but, like the dinosaur, it has had its day, and it has died because of its inherent inability to adapt.
I am going to write to the Wikipedia Foundation, and encourage them to create a new online directory to pick-up where DMOZ left off. I hope anyone reading this forum will join me in doing so.
