Editing model
ODP's editing model is a hierarchical one. Upon becoming an editor, an individual will generally have editing permissions in only a small category. Once they have demonstrated basic editing skill in compliance with the Editing Guidelines, they are welcome to apply for additional editing privileges, in either a broader category, or in a category elsewhere in the directory. Mentorship relationships between editors are encouraged, and internal forums provide a vehicle for new editors to ask questions.
Over time, senior editors may be granted additional privileges which reflect their editing experience and leadership within the editing community. The most straightforward are editall privileges, which allow an editor to access all categories in the directory. Meta privileges additionally allow editors to perform tasks such as reviewing editor applications, setting category features, and handling external and internal abuse reports. Cateditall privileges are similar to editall, but only for a single directory category; similarly, catmod privileges are similar to meta, but only for a single directory category. Catmv privileges allow editors to make changes to directory ontology by moving or renaming categories. All of these privileges are granted by staff, usually after discussion with meta editors.
Editing guidelines
All ODP editors are expected to abide by ODP's Editing Guidelines.[1] These guidelines describe: what types of sites may be listed and which may not; how site listings should be titled and described in a loosely consistent manner; conventions for the naming and building of categories; conflict of interest limitations on the editing of sites which the editor may own or otherwise be affiliated with; and a code of conduct within the community. Editors who are found to have violated these guidelines may be contacted by staff or senior editors, have their editing permissions cut back, or, as a last resort, lose their editing privileges entirely. ODP Guidelines are periodically revised after discussion in editor forums.
Site submissions
The original motivation for forming Gnuhoo/Newhoo/ODP was the frustration that many people experienced in getting their sites listed on Yahoo!. However, Yahoo! has since addressed this problem by implementing a paid service for timely consideration of site submissions, making free site submissions the primary advantage of ODP. In striking contrast, ODP now has approximately one million unreviewed site submissions, in large part due to spam and incorrectly submitted sites, making the average processing time for a site properly submitted to ODP approximately six months. Moreover, because of concerns about abusive e-mail, ODP's volunteer editors are discouraged from communicating with site submitters, leaving many submitters to wonder whether and when their site has been considered and rejected for inclusion in ODP. In response to ongoing criticism of this policy, ODP editors have set up a public forum where queries about site submission status can be posted.[1]
Controversy and criticism
Allegations of abusive editing practices
There have long been allegations that volunteer ODP editors give favorable treatment to their own websites while concomitantly thwarting the good faith efforts of their competition. Such allegations are fielded by ODP's staff and meta editors, who have the authority to take disciplinary action against volunteer editors who are suspected of engaging in abusive editing practices. In 2003, ODP introduced a new Public Abuse Report System that allows members of the general public to report and track allegations of abusive editor conduct using an online form. [1]
In a widely publicized federal lawsuit which is still ongoing in the United States, a prominent tax law firm known as J.K. Harris obtained a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction against a volunteer ODP editor. The plaintiff alleged, in part, that the editor in question had engaged in abusive editing practices that violated both state and federal laws restricting unfair competition. The Honorable Claudia Wilken, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, found that this allegation did not justify injunctive relief, but granted injunctive relief on other grounds.[1]
On (date), ODP's paid staff gave the paid employees of professional content providers such as AOL and Rolling Stone magazine high level editing access at ODP. This led to allegations of unfair competition at ODP and unethical quid pro quo. Some volunteer editors perceived this to be a sellout of the "grass roots" principles on which ODP was based.
Ownership and management of ODP
Underlying much of the controversy surrounding ODP is its ownership and management. Many of the original GnuHoo volunteers felt that they had been deceived into joining a commercial enterprise, but most of the initial controversy died down when the project was renamed NewHoo. Moreover, when Netscape acquired the project, renamed it ODP, and released ODP's content under an open content license, criticism of the ODP all but disappeared. However, as the community of editors at ODP began to grow, and ODP's content became widely used by most major search engines and web directories, the issue of ODP's ownership and management resurfaced.
At ODP's inception, there was little thought given to the idea of how ODP should be managed, and there were no official forums, guidelines, or FAQs. In essence, ODP began as a free for all. Even after ODP set up its internal editor forums, many editors remained blissfully unaware that these forums existed until they were directed to the forums by one of their fellow editors. Moreover, given that ODP had no official guidelines at first, ODP editors simply hashed out some sort of consensus among themselves and published unofficial FAQs.
As time went on, the ODP Editor Forums became the de facto ODP parliament, and when one of ODP's staff members would post an opinion in the forums, it would be deferred to as an official ruling. (In other words, "Staff has spoken.") There was also a short-lived attempt at moderation of the ODP Editor Forums, but it was abandoned as being the antithesis of the egalitarian principles on which the ODP community was supposed to be based. Even so, ODP staff began to give trusted senior editors additional editing privileges, including the ability to approve new editor applications, which eventually led to a stratified hierarchy of duties and privileges among ODP editors, with ODP's paid staff having the final say regarding ODP's policies and procedures.
Allegations that ODP editors are removed for criticizing ODP's policies
ODP's paid staff has imposed controversial policies from time to time, and volunteer editors who openly dissent often find their editing privileges removed, an ongoing situation which has been chronicled at the XODP Yahoo! eGroup since May of 2000. The first noteworthy expose was Life After the Open Directory Project, a June 1, 2000 guest column written for Traffick.com by David F. Prenatt, Jr (former ODP editor 'netesq'), who founded the XODP Yahoo! eGroup after losing his ODP editing privileges.[1]
Another noteworthy example was the volunteer editor known by the alias The Cunctator, who was banned from the ODP soon after submitting an article to Slashdot on October 24, 2000, which criticized changes in ODP's copyright policies.[1]
In light of the apparent risks of expressing dissent openly, at least one ODP insider has expressed his or her dissent in AOL Meddling in ODP Causes Shift in Balance of Editorial Power, an article published at Traffick.com on September 4, Source | Copyright
Related categories
