A lot of text was changed/removed by NetEsq between versions 14:58 Mar 10, 2003 and the earlier. Why? // Liftarn
- Because he is abusing and harming the spirit of Wikipedia by bringing in his personally and biased opinions about the ODP for kicking him (also likely for abusing).
- I agree, but what can be done about the problem? // Liftarn
This article began with:
- The Open Directory Project (ODP), also known as DMoz (for Directory.Mozilla), is a massive, human-maintained open content directory of World Wide Web links owned by AOL.
It was revised to read:
- The Open Directory Project (ODP), also known as DMoz (for Directory.Mozilla), is a massive, human-maintained open content directory of World Wide Web links owned by AOL in the same way Wikipedia is owned by Bomis.
I reverted the introduction to the original version because the assertion equating Wikipedia with ODP is a highly biased and misleading assertion which is (at best) irrelevant. To wit, Wikipedia is not a Web directory, and ODP is not run by Open Source software. -- NetEsq 21:28 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)
The relation of ownership AOL - ODP and Wikipedia - Bomis is the same. The projects are different in what they are (web directory vs encyclopedia) but the type of ownership is the same. ODP's software isn't open source, but the content is still open content. The system of editors at ODP makes it somewhat more simmilar to Nupedia. // Liftarn 09:38 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
- My understanding is that you assign the copyright of your material to the ODP, while it grants you a license to use that work in other contexts. This is radically different than the relationship between Wikipedia and Bomis. -- Stephen Gilbert 19:35 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
The licence is different. I was basicly talking about who pays the bills. There the relationship is the same. ODP is hosted and administered by Netscape Communication Corporation. Wikipedia is hosted and administered by Boomis. // Liftarn
- I dispute that. License and copyright are not the same thing. For Wikipedia, Bomis owns the server(s) and the domain names. The contributors own the copyright on their work, which they license under the GFDL; thus, Bomis does not own the content. However, ODP contributors forfit their copyright, and so AOL also own the content of the ODP. This is a very different arrangement. -- Stephen Gilbert 22:49 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)
The ownership of Wikipedia -- which is currently in the process of becoming a non-profit corporation -- is totally irrelevant to this article. However, I have inserted a blurb regarding the ownership of the now defunct Go directory (by Disney) and Zeal (acquired by Looksmart), both of them being Web directories that are or were maintained by volunteers and are or were owned by public corporations. -- NetEsq 15:44 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
Btw, why shouldn't Open Directory Project License be mentioned? // Liftarn 11:37 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)
"...requires an advertisement for ODP on virtually every page of a Web site that uses the data."
This is pretty misleading, I'd write "requires an advertisement for ODP on virtually every page that uses the data.", since it does not require ad on pages which don't use the data. -- grin 08:18 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
- I find it missleading since it's really a link back and not an ad. The licence also requires that you state if you have changed the data. // Liftarn
Moved from my NetEsq user page:
ODP and NPOV
Netesq, Now, I'm not exactly a fan of a lot of the ODP's policies. Some, both past and present, to me, seem unfair and unwise. But that's not the point. I don't like seeing clearly biased stuff on an encyclopedia such as this, where it's presented as fact. You know, and I know, this is biased. I try to stay as neutral as I can on this. I certainly haven't edited a lot of the criticism of the ODP, and I've left in a sentence accusing the project dearest to me (not ODP) of not having gone anywhere much - because it is in its early stages, and though it's annoying, it's the darn truth.
Now, I'd like to work out a bit of a compromise on this. Something that's acceptable to you, but doesn't read like a rant. Or alternatively, I can just keep reverting it to my own neutral version - which I'll keep doing as long as I have to. I'd much rather the former, but it's your choice.
Ambivalenthysteria 14:34 9 Jul, 2003 (UTC)
- *shrugs* The point stands, wherever you put the question. Ambivalenthysteria
User:Netesq has been waging his own personal vendetta against the ODP for years, and the state of this article has been a result of this. I cleaned it up, merging prior revisions from two other users who had tried to make it NPOV. However, in trying to make this article more neutral, this is turning into an edit-revert war. I'm not the first to try and change it and have it reverted by User:Netesq. ambivalenthysteria 07:38 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Given the close proximity of editing activity and IP addresses, I (NetEsq) assume that this anonymous comment was made by Ambivalenthysteria:
- ". 22:03 8 Jul 2003 . . 210.50.10.2 (One has to wonder why certain people have nothing better to do than repeatedly try to readd POV violations clearly against Wiki rules.)
From Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:
- "Neutrality is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really does disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties."
Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires a balanced presentation of opposing viewpoints. Sanitizing an article by removing criticism and/or opposing viewpoints is antithetical to this policy. NetEsq 15:10 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)