SEO Tycoon

**Alexandro** · 05-27-2007, 10:40 AM

This site http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007...k-to-zero.html
start a campaign to Reduce Wikipedia’s PageRank to Zero;NoFolow me Wikipedia Campaign.

**usearchme** · 05-27-2007, 12:02 PM

hmm i see your point but i dont see how thats fair to wikipedia !!

**ForrestCroce** · 05-27-2007, 02:41 PM

I won't worry about what's fair to Wikipedia; they force anyone who uploads a picture to release it for commercial and derivative uses. There are a few real problems with the theory, though.

First, Wikipeida doesn't have a page rank, because it's a web site, not a page. That might sound nit-picky, but people won't be able to hijack SEO if they don't understand how PR works or what it's applied to.

More to the point, there's Wikipedia's content. Some of it is truly awful; last time I looked at the Lake Tahoe article, WP said the lake is in the center of Utah. Photography "knowledge" listed on WP is in most cases straight out of the 1800s. The drive-by nature of editing at Wikipedia means it'll always be that way, and all of their information is suspect to some degree.

But they also have some very good content, and the public's confidence. That study showed them having one more error per article, on average, than Encyclopedia Britannica, when the articles are three times as long on average. They're a good starting point for research. And because of this, real people who have no idea what PR stands for link to Wikipedia on their web sites every day. People who will never see this post.

Also, the guy who wrote that says Wikipedia got where it is on the backs of webmasters linking to them. This shows a head-up-the-@$$ style of thinking. WP became what it is because of all the volunteers who gave up their time to improve WP, by writing, photographing, editing, clearing spam, and so on. Typical of made for adsense.

I can see the point, though. John made a stink on his blog over Wikipedia using nofollow links except to Wikia sites. That's their right, but I'll agree it's just a little inconsistent. In any case, if webmasters don't like Wikipedia, they should find a site with better content to link to instead.

**Alexandro** · 05-28-2007, 12:45 PM

the nofolow from wikipedia will not stop the spam at this moment because webmasters will now spam wikipedia for traffic;
Also exist the problem with what happen in dmoz, administrators to have websites and to remove from wikipedia competitors.
I talk with some administrators and the policy of them is to remove from external links sites that have advertising(like adsense,ypn ...) and affiliates not depending if they have good content.
Maybe a solution is to have a search engine only for wikipedia content.

**ForrestCroce** · 05-28-2007, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexandro

I talk with some administrators and the policy of them is to remove from external links sites that have advertising(like adsense,ypn ...) and affiliates not depending if they have good content.

Honestly, that sounds like a good solution to me. Sites with ads ( and "affiliate programs" are just ads ) are commercial. Wikipedia itself is a non-profit, and it's their right to not send their traffic off to somebody else's bank account. It shouldn't come as much surprise that for-profit and non-profits mix like oil and water.

**willcode4beer** · 05-29-2007, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexandro

Maybe a solution is to have a search engine only for wikipedia content.

DO you mean something like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...ulltext=Search

**ADAM Web Design** · 05-29-2007, 02:47 PM

* shakes his head *

Yet another stupid idea from someone trying to paper the asses of the great unwashed to attempt to solve a problem we have no business trying to solve anyway.

**ForrestCroce** · 05-29-2007, 03:01 PM

Good point, Adam. "People already spam wikipedia for traffic, so we should force them to give us PR too" doesn't really make sense. Honestly, they probably aren't important enough to be bothering people so much...

**usearchme** · 05-29-2007, 05:06 PM

Hi there

I agree i think people are worrying about nothing so what if people do manage to get a link from wikipedia its hardly going to be a good link and hardly going to be relevant, while people getting links via there by basicially spamming is a bit annoying, people would be better off concentrating on getting better links for their own site rather than worrying about this !!!

Woc

**Learning Newbie** · 05-29-2007, 06:31 PM

I totally agree with this. All of the links to Wikipedia and its ilk ( like !Spanking Art Wiki! on for-profit Wikia ) on my web site are nofollow. Whenever I link to anyone else, and that's usually two or three per blog post, I use "search engine friendly" links, but when I link to Wikipedia ( more rarely ) I nofollow those links.

I've contributed a bit to Wikipedia, and have never added an external link to a site I had anything to do with. I've linked to the Mayo Clinic when editing an article on a particular form of cancer, and things like that that don't benefit me in any way except by making it a more educated world I live in. But they talk about consensus and democracy, but vote 60/40 to remove nofollow, then the owner makes a personal choice to ignore the will of the army of volunteers who created all of the content on Wikipedia.

The links to other Wikia sites and to other Wikipedia articles are "search engine friendly" so it seems like Mr Wales is trying to take advantage of the work of volunteers to benefit his for-profit venture, Wikia. Even if that doesn't affect me directly, it upsets my idea of what's fair and right.

If you'd like to see Wikipedia's real spam problem a good example is their article on Orthorexia Nervosa. Some doctor in Colorado invented an eating disorder where people die from not eating unhealthy food. He wrote a Made-for-Jerry-Springer ( like MFA? ) book about it, and uses the Wikipedia article to hawk his book.

Spamdexing Wikipedia is deplorable, but high quality sites that are directly related to the content of an article, can't be melded into that article, and survive round after round of peer review should get credit for it. Especially if the Mr Wales feels Wikia sites should get credit for being linked to in Wikipedia article.

I hope people realize I'm not trying to spam this thread, but I've written two posts that expand on the reasons I feel Wikipedia is acting unfairly, and anyone who's curious how a person like me who is usually reasonable and altruistic could feel this way. ( In short, I think Wikipedia should be held to the same standard of reasonable and altruistic that most of us hold ourselves to. )

Democracy on the Web - Why I "Follow" Comment Links on my Blog
Spam on Wikipedia - More Examples of the "Real" Problem and How it's Dealt With

**WebGraff** · 05-30-2007, 04:05 AM

Some Wiki critics

**ADAM Web Design** · 05-30-2007, 11:12 AM

John, I see your point about the spam problem on Wikipedia. There is no question that many of the entries there are flawed, inaccurate, or just plain garbage.

The problem I have with it is twofold:

1) Most of the problem with spam was created by the same spammers (SEOs who wanted a "quality backlink") that are now all hot and bothered about the issue and trying to use their power (which is nothing more than an egomanical notion that SEOs somehow control all aspects of the Internet) to try and stop the Wikipedia beast.

2) Most of the information on Wikipedia is still useful and wasn't created by spammers. The information provided legitimately is usually pretty obvious, as the information cites sources and doesn't include any personal bias. Why should any links to valuable and useful information include a nofollow just because there are useless pieces of information on the Wikipedia site?

**usearchme** · 05-30-2007, 02:49 PM

Hi

I have to say i agree with adam, just cos some people choose to spam wikipedia doesnt mean it should be zeroed, after all if somone said the same of ur site then u wouldnt be v happy would u !!!

Woc

**ForrestCroce** · 06-01-2007, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

1) Most of the problem with spam was created by the same spammers (SEOs who wanted a "quality backlink") that are now all hot and bothered about the issue and trying to use their power (which is nothing more than an egomanical notion that SEOs somehow control all aspects of the Internet) to try and stop the Wikipedia beast.

Well said.

And again, when you get to the bottom of the matter, the reason Wikipedia does well in the search results is because a lot of people ( who've never heard the term SEO ) find their content useful, and link to it naturally. SEOs really have no effect on where WP lands in Google.

Those are some very good points about the "strange bedfellows" in the non-profit and for-profit world, but we can all take advantage of the main thing that makes WP successful - good content, with at least a decent presentation. And typically at least one image per article, be it a photo, illustration, or whatever. Some people learn verbally by reading, others are more visual. They cover two bases, and it doesn't seem to be a bad idea.

So, rather than linking to WP articles and attaching rel="nofollow" onto those links, spend the time making your site more attractive as a package.