Obligations and Responsibilities
Like I said in the beginning, the only purpose of posting is to create some sort of record that I have submitted my site to the ODP on this particular date. That is it.
I totally understand that nobody is under any obligation to list any site within any given amount of time. If that were true, I would have had my site listed 18 months ago. Every webmaster knows that getting listed at the ODP is an extremely long process. However, that does not mean that category editors are free to do what they want. An editor can not, for example, use hype when describing a site. Mirror sites cannot be added. Sites that support hate and discrimination can not be listed. An editor cannot delete all sites from a category at will and leave only sites they own. Editors can’t take bribes or perform other acts of questionable ethics. An editor cannot do many things. The basic idea of being an editor is to make the ODP a better directory. Certain actions do harm. Those actions must be avoided. Therefore, it can be concluded that editors of the ODP are under the obligation to act ethically and improve the directory. (To say otherwise is to say that editors may act unethically and harm the directory). Editors therefore do have responsibilities and obligations to the ODP. Thus, the idea that because an editor is a volunteer and they are free to edit in any manner they choose (whether it harms the ODP or not) is clearly false.
I am sure that “spectregunner” agrees totally with the sentiment that editors are obligated not to harm the ODP and have the responsibility to act ethically (not to add hate sites for example).
It is true as spectregunner says that editors are free to review or not review a site as they wish. Nobody can force an editor to list sites if they do not want to do so. If an editor logs in for one second, once within any 4-month period, they are not technically required to do more. Volunteers are, after all, volunteers and not paid employees. However, I disagree with this idea because it harms the ODP and editors are under the obligation not to do so. The purpose of being an editor of the ODP is not to be a lazy, inactive editor with lots of excuses about how much time it takes to review a site. The spirit of being an editor, and thus the responsibility of editors as stated above, is to make the ODP a better place. By saying, “I’ll edit what I want, when I want, how I want and nobody can tell me otherwise,” an editor is clearly saying that they have no obligation to improve the ODP. This is false. Editors have the obligation to edit and the responsibility to make the ODP the greatest human edited directory. If an editor disagrees and refuses to maintain a category due to claims of lack of time, then they should step down and let somebody edit who has an interest to do so. By not editing a category in a timely manner, an editor is damaging the ODP and harming the community and the project as a whole.
Spectregunner – please answer the following question. If an editor of a category does not edit it, only logs in and logs out every four months, is that person improving or harming the ODP?
As for the steps outlined in my post, Kalena Jordan of SiteProNews recommended those as a possibility. As for “ulterior motives,” any Google search on DMOZ and corruption will provide a substantial number of articles of ODP editor corruption. That idea is hardly new to me. You will find all kinds of forum posts from people claiming to be editors for the sole purpose of blocking other people from being listed. Also, people bribe lazy editors because lazy editors can’t be motivated to edit in any other manner. If the ODP was working in a logical manner, this sort of thing would never happen.
Lastly, I volunteered to edit this and related categories myself and was immediately denied. Claiming that there are not enough editors is a shallow argument. This forum constantly has people posting about wanting to become editors. As for me, though I am an expert on this particular category, I was told that there would be a “conflict of interest”. That assumption goes directly against the Editing Guidelines that state, “Everyone is welcome to apply to join the ODP, including those who own, maintain and promote websites. Editors may have business or other types of affiliations relevant to the categories they edit, and may add their own sites or sites with which they are affiliated.”
We could assume from this:
A) Adding an affiliate site (if it is worthy) is not a conflict.
B) Denying a competitor’s site (if it is worthy,) is a conflict.
Considering that no sites are being added now, the unacceptable conditions of “B” are already in effect. No worthy sites are being added. Under these circumstances, it does not make sense to deny a person with an interest in a category on the grounds of “conflict of interest.”
