I stumbled across an interesting Web page that features an essay about ODP at <
http://www.shaneycrawford.com/writing/odp/ >. Overall, the essay is very
informative, but I have some very specific criticisms:

* The author refers to ODP "oncology," which is almost certainly a mistaken
reference to ODP _ontology_.

Oncology is the branch of medicine that deals with the study and treatment of
cancer; ontology is a term of art that ODP editors use to refer to the structure
of the ODP taxonomy.

* The author asserts, "It is very easy to join the ODP team."

This is a matter of opinion, but an objective observer would not agree with this
assertion. Right or wrong, the vast majority of editor applications at ODP are
rejected, and most people who are rejected are very much in the dark as to why.

* The author explains and asserts, "Once you have added a number of sites and
tidied up the original descriptions, you can apply to edit a different or higher
category. This promotion system works well because it motivates the volunteers
to try harder, and also gives a clear indication of the abilities of the senior
editors."

Once again, how well the promotion system works at ODP is a matter of opinion,
as is the purported rationale for using such a system. Many junior ODP editors
receive a great deal of conflicting feedback from senior ODP editors, and many
junior ODP editors get caught in the crossfire when senior ODP editors start
sniping at each other.

* The author asserts, "The huge number of volunteers also puts the ODP miles
ahead of other directory-style search engines. It is unlikely that any
commercial venture will be able to top the current volunteer staff of over
50,000 people. The level of co-peration that can be witnessed in this project is
truly impressive."

Here the author displays a good faith ignorance of the facts, falling for the
oft-repeated *BIG FAT LIE* that ODP has 50,000 active editors. On this note,
the "level of co-operation that can be witnessed in the project" ignores the
40,000 plus editor logins that have timed out or been "deactivated." Rather
than respond to these gross and obvious lies, damn lies, and statistics, the
powers that be at ODP assert the straw man argument that when ODP editors find
their editing privileges unceremoniously removed without notice, it is for
abusive editing practices.

If good taste would permit, I would raise the spectres of the many
well-respected ODP editors whose only crime was speaking out against AOL's ODP
Editorial Content Control Central. However, most of these people are content to
simply disappear into the ether and have no interest in being spotlighted on the
XODP Yahoo! eGroup.

* The author asserts, "It seems reasonable to suggest . . . that the majority of
the volunteers have no ulterior motives other than to meet new people,
participate in a huge co-operative effort, and get the satisfaction of a job
well-done."

Once again, a matter of opinion, but hardly in line with the facts. The vast
majority of volunteers at ODP *DO* have ulterior motives, a fact which should be
self-evident to anyone who is familiar with scholarly game theory. "The latest
figures from Rutgers University on academic dishonesty indicate 70 percent of
undergraduate students have cheated at least once on an exam, 87 percent have
cheated on written work, 52 percent have copied work from others, and 54 percent
have plagiarized." (_See generally_: <
http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/065.html >.) It is wholly unreasonable to
assert that ODP's volunteer editors are in some way more virtuous than the
members of academia.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq