just curious - credibility issues

Howdy again,
I'm just curious about the process to approve sites for inclusion in the directory. How many editors have to approve a site - is it just one, or are there editors who "double-check"?

If it just takes one editor to approve, is there danger of editors getting bribed to approve poor sites? Or is this danger alleviated by a system for reporting poor sites in the directory?

Just a random thought. Any other random thoughts?

I'm sure the powers that be will remove this post if I reveal anything I'm not supposed to, but....

In most cases, any editor who can look at a suggested site can approve it. (There are some exceptions, but that's the general rule.)

If I knew what the formal procedures are for detecting bad edits, I couldn't tell you. Suffice it to say that (at least some) editors can look at the details of all of an editor's edits. If a pattern of abuse appears, action can be taken. In many cases, improper edits can be reversed, as well as the editor being removed.

Some random thoughts back:

You should read the editing guidelines (publically accessible) and social contract.

It only requires a single editor to add a site to the directory (whether found by the editor or from the submission pool).

An editor who accepts a bribe will be immediately an irrevocably removed as an editor. Likely the sites involved will be removed and banned from the directory. There is no wiggle-room here. ( http://dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html )

We are a self-regulating community. While I am a listed editor for Recreation/Food/Drink/Beer, any listed editor in Recreation/Food/Drink, Recreation/Food, and Recreation can also edit there. As can the several hundred "editalls" who can edit in any part of the directory. Additionally, every editor action taken regarding a site is logged, and those logs are available to all editors.

So, while an editor might be "persuaded" to list a site that doesn't meet guidelines, there is nothing to prevent another editor, who notes how inappropriate the site is, from deleting it again.

A pattern of inappropriate site listings is noticable and can lead to an investigation. It may be simply a case of an editor not understanding the guidelines. In such a case efforts will be made to help the editor improve. In cases of abuse--and it's usually pretty clear-cut--the editor is removed.

And any editor can see a history of sites being added and/or deleted, and might just notice something suspicous. That can then be reported for investigation by senior editors. That provides a massive check and balance.

In fact, without going into details, I know that a post [in this forum] about a site not getting listed, made me suspicious about it's rejection, that in turn led to an investigation and caused an editor who had rejected that site for no logical reason, to be terminated, and that editor's own sites and biased editing to be removed.

>If it just takes one editor to approve, is there danger of editors getting bribed to approve poor sites?

Yes, of course there is. (There would, of course, be the same danger, at twice the price, if two editors were required to review before acceptance.)

>Or is this danger alleviated by a system for reporting poor sites in the directory?

There are three formal systems, and a variety of informal ones, for reporting poor sites. And yes, I think they alleviate the problem.

Note that "editor bribery" is by no means the only potential way that unethical humans can sabotage the directory. We've seen lots of others. No doubt we've missed some.

What really alleviates the problem is not "systems" but "people:" people that report problems, people that fix them, people that don't tolerate people who abuse.

And obviously we have no permanent guarantee of that. Some societies simply don't supply enough public-spirited incorruptible people; our users will judge if or when we become one of them.