DMOZ

The neutrality of this page is disputed.

The Open Directory Project (ODP), also known as DMoz (for Directory.Mozilla.org), is a massive, human-maintained open content directory of World Wide Web links owned and run by Netscape (owned by AOL-Time Warner). It is constructed and maintained by a community of volunteer editors.

History

ODP was originally known as Gnuhoo. It was renamed Newhoo after a Slashdot article pointed out that Gnuhoo was not powered by free software and that Gnuhoo was using the GNU project's trademark without GNU's permission.[1] Detractors claimed that Gnuhoo had nothing in common with the spirit of free software promoted by GNU, and instead was simply a commercial enterprise seeking to construct an alternative to Yahoo! using volunteer labor.

Newhoo became ODP after being acquired by Netscape for the sum of $1 million in October of 1998 and releasing its content under an open content license. Netscape was acquired by AOL shortly thereafter, and ODP was one of the assets included in the acquisition. AOL later merged with Time Warner, which now owns ODP. ODP has inspired the formation of at least two other Web directories edited by volunteers and sponsored by public companies: The now defunct Go directory (formerly owned by Disney) and Zeal (acquired by LookSmart). However, neither of these Web directories have licensed their content for open content distribution, a strategy which ensured ODP's success in a highly competitive market.

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 implemented a paid submission service for timely consideration of Web site submissions, making free site submissions the primary advantage of ODP to submitters. In striking contrast, some claim that ODP now has approximately one million unreviewed site submissions, in large part due to spam and incorrectly submitted sites, making the processing time for a site properly submitted to ODP anything between a few minutes to approximately six months.

Open Content

ODP data is made available for open content distribution under the terms of the Open Directory Project License which requires link back to ODP on virtually every Web page that uses the data as well as a notice if the data has been altered. Furthermore, the RDF dumps have gained a reputation in some circles for being frequently corrupted.

ODP data powers the core directory services for many of the Web's largest search engines and portals, including Netscape Search, AOL Search, Google, and Lycos. However, most of these search engines have stopped updating their ODP data, and some smaller sites stopped using RDF Dumps, as they grew increasingly large, choosing to query live data directly from the ODP Web site. Moreover, many noteworthy Web portals that once embraced ODP's free data co-branding have since abandoned ODP's free data model for the revenue sharing model of ODP's major competitor LookSmart.

Communication

Because of concerns about abusive e-mail, ODP's volunteer editors are discouraged from communicating with site submitters, before the open forum[2] was started this left many submitters to wonder whether and when their site has been considered and rejected for inclusion in ODP. ODPs policy is that ODP is made for searchers, not submitters.

Allegations

In addition to the frustration that some submitters feel over the ODP site submission process, there have long been allegations that volunteer ODP editors give favorable treatment to their own Web sites while concomitantly thwarting the good faith efforts of their competition. Such allegations are fielded by ODP's meta editors, who have the authority to take disciplinary action against other volunteer editors who are suspected of engaging in abusive editing practices. Moreover, in a widely publicized federal lawsuit which is still ongoing, 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 by alleging, in part, that the editor in question had engaged in abusive editing practices which violated federal laws restricting unfair competition. [3] Allegations of unfair competition at ODP and unethical quid pro quo also arose when ODP's paid staff gave the paid employees of professional content providers such as AOL and Rolling Stone high level editing access at ODP in an effort to boost the link count. Many volunteer editors perceived this to be a sellout of the grass roots principles on which ODP was based.

Policies

ODP's paid staff has imposed other controversial policies from time to time, and some critis claim that volunteer editors who openly dissent may find their editing priveleges 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 was removed from ODP and then founded the XODP Yahoo! eGroup for disgrunted ex-ODP editors. [4] Another noteworthy example was chronicled on Slashdot on October 24, 2000, when a volunteer editor known by the alias "The Cunctator" criticized changes in ODP's copyright policies that was made due to threats from Nintendo. [5] In light of the perceived risks of expressing dissent openly, at least one claimed 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, 2001 under the pseudonym of Julian McCreary. [6]

Size of the Directory and Number of Editors

As of July 2003, ODP has over 3.8 million entries in 460,000 categories, maintained by 57,238 editors. However, the number of editors contributing to ODP is often claimed to be exaggerated by a ratio of at least 5 to 1 due to the fact that ODP tracks the total number of editors rather than the number of currently active editors. After an inactive period of four months, many of these logins time out, but can be reactivated. Other logins that are included in the overall tally represent the logins of former editors who have had their editing privileges removed, for abusive editing practices as by consensus of ODP's staff and meta editors. Moreover, when ODP editor logins are intentionally deactivated, some former editors simply try reapply under an assumed identity, which may lead to even greater exagerration in the total number of ODP editors.

Removal of ODP Editors

ODP's editor removal procedures, which are overseen by ODP's staff and meta editors, are by malcontents often claimed to be controversial. According to ODP's official editorial guidelines, editors are removed for abusive editing practices or inability to work in a team. However, discussions that may result in disciplinary action against volunteer editors take place in a private forum which can only be accessed by ODP's staff and meta editors, and volunteer editors who are at risk of losing their editing privileges are supposed to be contacted regarding this, but some ex-editors claim that this did not happen. The rationale that is publicly asserted for this policy is that volunteer editors are assumed to know when they are violating ODP guidelines. In the case of "good faith" abuse the editor is also told to watch it. ODP also has a standing policy that prohibits any current ODP editors from discussing the specific reasons for specific editor removals. As such, former ODP editors who have lost their editing privileges often claim to wonder why they cannot login at ODP to perform their editing work.

Private Editor Forums

Critics of ODP have questioned the propriety of ODP even having private editor forums in what is purportedly an open project, as both Go and Zeal have always allowed public access to their forum discussions. However, the defenders of ODP's private forums assert that such forums are necessary for the discussion of matters that are internal to ODP. Even so, some of these private forum discussions have been published outside of ODP after being forwarded to ODP's critics by anonymous ODP insiders. [7]

Becoming an Editor

There are some other restrictions imposed on ODP editors, including restrictions on who can become an ODP editor in the first place. The first gatekeeping mechanism is an editor application process, presided over by ODP's meta editors, wherein editor candidates are required to demonstrate their editing abilities and disclose any and all Web site affiliations that might pose a conflict of interest. Approximately 90% of these applications are rejected, but re-application is the norm.

Once an editor-applicant has been granted editing privileges, he or she must then apply for additional editing privileges for each additional ODP category. After an extended period of editing, some editors are granted editall and meta editing privileges, with editall status typically being a short precursor to meta status. As alluded to above, meta editors are responsible for the day-to-day management of ODP, which they carry out under directives issued by the paid staff of ODP's parent corporation, AOL-Time Warner. These directives, known as ODP's editorial guidelines, are often discussed in ODP's internal editor forums. In turn, these discussions are used to formulate new and revised editorial guidlines from time to time.

Software

Critics of ODP, most notable among them being the aforementioned GNU project, also point to the fact that ODP's editing software is not open source and that ODP's content license restricts the freedom of licensees unnecessarily. As such, there have been many efforts to provide truly open alternatives to ODP (see below). These alternatives would allow communities of like-minded editors to set up and maintain their own open source/open content Web directories. However, no noteworthy open source/open content alternative to ODP has yet emerged.

Spinoffs

ODP has inspired the formation of a number of proprietary Web directories, some of which are edited by volunteers, such as Zeal and the multilingual MavicaNet, and others which are edited by independent contractors, such as Hotrate. Moreover, the concept of using a large-scale community of editors to compile online content has been successfully applied to other types of projects such as Wikipedia, a freely licensed online encyclopedia originally sponsored by the Bomis corporation until Bomis founded the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.

ODP itself has spawned three spinoff projects. One, an open content restaurant directory known as ChefMoz, by the ODP Staff and the two others, an open content music directory known as MusicMoz and an encyclopedia known as Open Site, by the ODP editor community. However, none of these has yet achieved any noteworthy success.

External links

Open Directory Project and Digital Libraries - Article by Shaney Crawford.

References

[1] - Slashdot | The GnuHoo BooBoo | Posted by CmdrTaco (Tuesday June 23, 1998)
[2] - Open Directory Project Public Forum
[3] - Paylesstax.com | J.K. Harris v. Steven Kassel
[4] - Traffick.com | Life After the Open Directory Project | Guest Column by David F. Prenatt, Jr. (June 1, 2000)
[5] - Slashdot | Dmoz (aka AOL) Changing Guidelines In Sketchy Way | Posted by CmdrTaco (Tuesday October 24, 2000)
[6] - Traffick.com | AOL Meddling in ODP Causes Shift in Balance of Editorial Power | By Julian McCreary (September 4, 2001)
[7] - Donotgo.com | Dumb-oz (Reproduction of Internal ODP Editor Forum)