Hahahahaha.

I noticed a few months ago that the ODP article at Wikipedia was
listed as "disputed". Other disputed articles included ones on
Scientology and religious and political topics. The Scientology
connection made sense because ODP looks more like a cult all the
time. (I just looked at Wikipedia, and Scientology is no
longer "disputed"; maybe I had that wrong.)

Anyhow, I read some of the history of the ODP article. Someone
mentioned that the legendary Arlarson article about removal of
editors is no longer available at ODP. A shame, because that was
seriously one of the funniest things I have ever read on the
Internet. I thought it was a joke at first. But it was a great
article.

There have been two stunning threads at Webmasterworld in the past
two months. One was called

"Editors Getting Offered or Expecting Compensation?"

and the other was "ODP On Verge of Collapse?"

both started by Webmasterworld owner Brett Tabke. (I really think
if anyone else had started them, they would have been deleted.)

Now I very much doubt there is much bribery going on at ODP, but it
was hilarious to read the reactions and defenses the cult came up
with in response to a suggestion of misconduct.

It's hard to be mad at ODP these days. They deserve pity, not
hatred or contempt. If Time Warner has any corporate conscience
they would pay for some therapy time for the meta-editors, who
probably are depressed.




--- In xodp@yahoogroups.com, "David F. Prenatt, Jr." <netesq@d...>
wrote:
> [Kctipton:]
> >
> > I'm not the one who removed the link. Someone else did. Take a
hard
> > look at the logs.
>
> _Mea culpa_. You didn't remove the link. An anonymous Wikipedian
removed the link, then "Angela," who also happens to be a current
ODP editor, removed the link, and then you agreed with her fallback
position that the link should be annotated to reflect the lack of
recent posts regarding ODP, a point that has been wholly mooted by
your current response here.
>
> [Kctipton:]
> >
> > Since wikipedia lets anybody with a keyboard undo others'
additions
> > and changes, no wonder you've able to call everyone else
ineffective
> > in changing things. I'd rather call it this: Netesq has been
> > effective at deleting/reverting anything he doesn't agree with or
> > casts ODP in any sort of positive light.
>
> Call it whatever you wish. It doesn't change the fact that the
current Wikipedia article is the result of more than one mediated
discussions in which I unswervingly deferred to the decisions of
third parties.
>
> [Kctipton:]
> >
> > I put in three damn hours reading, writing and revising that
> > article, adding significant content that you, being 4 years out
of
> > touch with ODP, couldn't possibly have firsthand knowledge of.
>
> You'd be surprised just how much firsthand knowledge I have had of
ODP during the past 4 years. During the last year alone, I have
been contacted by more than one attorney who has filed suit against
ODP on behalf of his/their client(s), and I am informed and believe
that the information that I shared with said attorneys helped at
least one of them negotiate an out of court settlement that was
acceptable to all parties concerned. Incidental to these contacts
was a review of "confidential" information -- including posts in
ODP's "private" editor forums -- that had been obtained through
pretrial discovery.
>
> [Kctipton:]
> >
> > . . . Still, you deleted the content -- against Wikipedia policy
no
> > less.
>
> At no point in time during my editing of the Wikipedia article on
ODP did I "violate" any of Wikipedia's policies, a point that is no
doubt lost on someone who is accustomed to the peculiar way that ODP
formulates and enforces its own policies and procedures. And even
if I were technically "guilty" of violating one of Wikipedia's
policies, Wikipedians are free to "ignore all rules," a Wikipedia
policy that is endorsed by a number of Wikipedians, including
Wikipedia's primary benefactor Jimbo Wales. (See <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules >.)
>
> IMHO, most of the changes that you made to the Wikipedia article
on ODP did not improve it. In any event, while I did revert your
edits, I reinstated a substantial amount of the content that you
contributed, and the content that is found in the current article is
the product of your contributions and the mediated discussions that
preceded your contributions.
>
> [Kctipton:]
> >
> > . . . You are NOT on the side of those who want to present a fair
> > and full presentation of ODP, positive or otherwise.
>
> This statement is qualified in such a way as to make it
meaningless. To wit, by virtue of the fact that there are a
substantial number of people who find flaw with ODP, a fair and full
presentation of ODP could not be "positive or otherwise." Rather, a
fair and full presentation of ODP would comport with Wikipedia's
NPOV policy, which would require a balanced presentation of all
noteworthy viewpoints.
>
> Humbly Yours,
>
> XODP Moderator netesq