SunirsOdpApplication

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories

In trying to get the OpenDirectoryProjectWikiCategory under the "soft" control of the Meatball community, Sunir's application to edit was rejected:

You need to provide a better presented application, 
particularly in respect of the supplied sample descriptions. 
Feel free to apply again, but if you do, read those sections of 
our guidelines relevant to describing websites. See 
http://dmoz.org/guidelines/

So, let's do it!

The Category

: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Groupware/Wiki/

Some FAQs

: http://dmoz.org/add.html
: http://dmoz.org/guidelines/

Application URL

: http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/apply.cgi?submit=Proceed&where=Computers%2FSoftware%2FGroupware%2FWiki&id=&lk=&loc=

The Questions

What is your Internet experience?: I am the Founder and Editor of MeatballWiki, a collective of computer supported collaboration developers. MeatballWiki serves as a meeting place for wiki proprietors to meet, discuss, and organize themselves.

Why are you interested in volunteering to be an editor for the ODP?: As Editor of MeatballWiki, I am highly involved with the wiki community. Consequently, the two current editors of Computers/Software/Groupware/Wiki, Florian and Adam, have asked for my assistance in developing this category.

Explain your interest in the subject of the category for which you are applying to edit: My goal is to develop the category as representative of the entire wiki community. I'd like the ODP wiki category to become a comprehesive resource, listing all wiki websites and the software used to create them.

Sites with which you are associated: MeatballWiki (http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl), UseModWiki (http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl), MetaWiki (http://sunir.org/apps/meta.pl), WikiWiki (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?), Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/).

Please provide 2 or 3 URLs, [sic] that you would add to this category along with titles and descriptions for each.

: URL: http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/
: Title: InfoAnarchy Wiki
: Description: Discusses file sharing, copyright, the gift economy, cyber liberties, peer to peer research, information tools, and similar topics.

: URL: http://bookshelved.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl
: Title: Bookshelved Wiki
: Description: Reviews, recommendations and discussions about books of all kinds.

: URL: http://www.kayakforum.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/guille/wiki.pl?HomePage
: Title: Kayak Wiki
: Description: Dedicated to kayaks and kayaking. Discussion about kayaking techniques, a glossary of terms, and recommended reading.

: URL:
: Title:
: Description:

(Note: The category to which Sunir applied was apparently < http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Groupware/Wiki/ >.) There is nothing obviously wrong with Sunir's application, and the (anonymous) feedback does not offer much guidance. What it does do is direct Sunir to < http://dmoz.org/guidelines/ > with a vague reference to < http://dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html >.

Capturing the Correct URL

: It is *possible* that this might be part of the problem, but I doubt it. All three URLs appear to be TheRealMcCoy?.

Titles

: The only obvious error that I see is that the word "wiki" is not capitalized for "InfoAnarchy wiki," but is capitalized for the other two URLs.

Descriptions

: "* DO NOT* contain over used sentences and phrases, such as those starting with: 'This site is...' 'Site includes ...' or ending with 'etc.' 'and more'. " (The second sentence of the description for Kayak Wiki reads: "Includes a glossary of terms, . . . .")

The question is: Do these two (very minor) failures to comply with the euphemistically titled "ODP Guidelines" merit a rejected application when the taciturn ODP has over 1 million unreviewed site submissions? -- DavidPrenatt

: This isn't the original application that Sunir sent in; this one has been edited and improved. Sunir's original answer to "Why are you interested in this topic" was "See above." ;-) -- StephenGilbert

: Vague references to guidelines - There is a section on the rejection form for actual comments from whomever rejects you, but I've never yet seen a rejection where this was actually filled in with anything specific. About a year ago I decided again I'd apply to be an editor. I spent a few hours reading everything I could find about being an editor, about what would give an editor application the best chance to succeed, etc. I then applied to edit the category of people with a last name of Campbell. Hard to get smaller than that, it should have given me a chance to prove myself. I found them some good sites, wrote good descriptions, double checked everything, sent it in, and was soon honored with a vague guideline reference rejection in my inbox.... That's not the first time I've been turned down. I've just always figured it's because I write too many sites that they turn me down, although some of my sites are listed in their directory.... If you spend some time on their discussion forum, you'll soon understand the primary attitude of the metas: They feel they have absolutely no responsibility to the webmasters who submit sites, and no responsibility at all to the people who try to jump through the hoops and apply to be an editor. It's actually amazing they even bother to send the rejections to editors. It's easy to find stories on the net from people who claim to have applied to be an editor more than a dozen times.... When you read the discussion dmoz discussion forums, you'll discover the attitude that anyone who submits their own site, and then asks 'when will you list me' is only proving that they do not deserve a listing. Their only interest is in serving the visitors of their directory. Webmasters and wanna-be editors don't count.... Hence my applying the idea of wiki to their directory, and creating the TrulyOpenDirectory alternative to DMOZ to try and solve some of these problems. -- GarnetR

I've applied to be a DMOZ editor twice. Both times rejected with no explanation given. The first was several years ago, the second time was a few weeks ago. The first was "Search Engines" I think, and the recent one was the "Images" category under "Search Engines". Presumably both rejections are because I also operate a website on the topic, and am thus biased. I appreciate the reason, but it bothers me. Yes, I would include my website, but I would also do a great job editing the page. The Images category right now sucks, and as I've been working on improving http://www.faganfinder.com/img/ , I have a lot of knowledge to contribute. It seems to me that if they reject everyone who has a website on a related topic, that'll eliminate a lot of good applicants. -- MichaelFagan

: According to DavidPrenatt, ODP rejects 90% of all applications. "Search Engines" is a large and important category, and thus applications from an outsider would be rejected. Most editors in the upper level categories got there by working their way up from tiny, deep categories. I currently edit a couple of minor categories, and I'm sure I would be rejected for Search Engines/Images as well. -- StephenGilbert

: I see your point, but I Search Engines/Images is fairly deep. So you don't think I was rejected because of my website? 90% sounds pretty darn high. -- MichaelFagan

: While 90% may sound high, re-application is the norm. The best category to apply for is a small regional category, preferably one in your home town. It's pretty hard to get turned down for one of those unless there is something seriously wrong with your application. -- DavidPrenatt

When I first applied it was to Reference/Encyclopedias/Directories, and I was turned down. I thought it was because of my association with WikiPedia, but I later learned that many editors are associated with sites related to the topics they edit. -- StephenGilbert

SunirsOdpApplication

Discussion