I encourage both sides to keep up discussion as long as both are interested, and have something new to bring to the table. Some may not like how the discussion went, and have a tendency to blame the one responsible for its origin.

As far as the topic goes (not the process), I see things as business as usual. I've been known to criticize/defend Google in the same day, for discussion's sake. I doubt someone is weeping on the other end. In the DMOZ debate, I'm not so sure. (on both sides!)

IMO, the article was to report the opinions, to generate discusion. The value of DMOZ was mentioned, but wasn't expounded upon because it's a 'given'. The rest was left for discussion, where anyone in the world has an opportunity to voice in. Mission accomplished.

Terms like 'attacked', and 'victimized' are far fetched.

To say this is breaking any journalistic rules is poppycock. Incidentally, every venue of media has its own 'rules'. What goes for TV is different than radio, which differs from print. There is also commentary. This kind is a discussion generator. Talk about quality! Give that boy a raise.

Anway, just like DMOZ doens't owe anyone anything, neither does WPW.

---------
ps: you've done a fine job yourself, cbp, IMO.