Wikipedia has just recently added nofollow tags to all external links in order to reduce spam.

Matt Cutts provides his comments here.

its good to have this, preventing links to bad neighbour.
i thinking to do this as well. hehe

Originally Posted by charlesgan

its good to have this, preventing links to bad neighbour.
i thinking to do this as well. hehe

That would not be the major driving force but the one that would be is to stop the spamming of links and cut of the tasks of the editors.

For relevant links that shouldn't mean anything; if the reader wants to learn more about the subject, they'll click. If not, it was just spam anyway; the stuff managed to evolve out of email.

What they should do is not publish links until approved by an editor.
links is what the internet is all about.

because surely if a link is good enough to be included in wikipedia it's good enough to be followed.

Originally Posted by stOx

What they should do is not publish links until approved by an editor.
links is what the internet is all about.

because surely if a link is good enough to be included in wikipedia it's good enough to be followed.

Thats not the concept of wiki. The content can be added without any editor to the section or even a new section.

I can add anything which may not be there and so does the editor.

And it's not the concept of the internet to have links that aren't followed, But yet, Here we are.

Some day when all links are nofollow then... Search engines will have to follow them anyway

Originally Posted by Thomas Schulz

Some day when all links are nofollow then... Search engines will have to follow them anyway

That's exactly right. What would Google do if we all decided to use nofollow? They would have to follow eventually.

Take a look at this article which discusses how Google sees the nofollow rule.

http://dallas-seo.blogspot.com/2006/...work-like.html

Originally Posted by shabbirbhimani

Thats not the concept of wiki. The content can be added without any editor to the section or even a new section.

Wikipedia considers everybody an editor, or at least everybody who cares to click the "Edit this Page" link. There are spammers and "vandals," but they go by the theory that most people are trying to make a positive contribution because knowledge reigns supreme.

This can be exploited, and it has, to the point that folks are fairly hostile to any link over there. A lot of it is a genuine problem; people spam articles with unrelated links, to pages with more ads than content, and so on. But a lot of them are valid, on the other hand, with good information related to the topic, that can't be put into the article either because it would be too long, or for copyright reasons.

I think WP considers this a temporary fix while they work out a better system. But in the meantime, everything on Wikipedia is there because of volunteers, and they felt like their efforts were being taken advantage of.

It was only a matter of time before they did something to cut down on all the spam. I don't know that I'm in favor of it, but I'm really not that surprised.

If it discourages people from adding links to Wikipedia purely to gain PR, then I think using the nofollow tag is a good idea. Your motives for adding a link should be to benefit the reader of a particular page, not to reap some benefit yourself.

If your link does benifit the reader why shouldn't you benifit from it as well?

I agree that spam should be removed and people shouldn't add thier link with the sole intention of gaining PR and a backlink, But if we start punnishing good sites and good webmasters to protect us from a few spammers we find ourselves at the top of a very slippery slope.

Originally Posted by stOx

But if we start punnishing good sites and good webmasters to protect us from a few spammers we find ourselves at the top of a very slippery slope.

You sound like a SEO when you call it 'punishment'

You have to remember that not everything you do will be rewarded, even if it is good. I have a link from a Wikipedia page, but I personally don't see the withdrawal of a benefit I had no right to expect as a 'punishment'. How about being satisfied with the intrinisic reward of simply doing something to help the community?

If people start abusing a system, then rules need to be revised. If the addition of "nofollow" cuts down the abuse then I'm happy, even if I don't get the PR that I once did.

I wouldn't have a problem with them using nofollow until a trusted editor has approved the links, Then remove the nofollow. But simply having a blanket nofollow policy is a bit like giving up.

I wouldn't want a link from anyone who uses a blanket nofollow. Not because I'm desperate for links, But because i see it like this; If my site is good enough to link to, Refrence and send your visitors to, Why prevent bots going there?

Originally Posted by stOx

I wouldn't have a problem with them using nofollow until a trusted editor has approved the links, Then remove the nofollow. But simply having a blanket nofollow policy is a bit like giving up.

I wouldn't want a link from anyone who uses a blanket nofollow. Not because I'm desperate for links, But because i see it like this; If my site is good enough to link to, Refrence and send your visitors to, Why prevent bots going there?

I have to agree with your comments. If an editor at Wikipedia considers that a website is good enough to leave as a link on the site then why shouldn't it be acknowledged for that?

If everyone linked to Wikipedia using the nofollow tag how important would it be?

Originally Posted by jenyfari

I have to agree with your comments. If an editor at Wikipedia considers that a website is good enough to leave as a link on the site then why shouldn't it be acknowledged for that?

If everyone linked to Wikipedia using the nofollow tag how important would it be?

Letting your link remain on a Wikipedia page is an acknowledgement. You might even get an increase in traffic.

You are not comparing a like situation when you talk about everyone linking to Wikipedia with nofollow. If you link to Wikipedia, it is your decision - there is no possibility of spam unless you have a split personality and the non-linking personality thought it was a bad idea. Wikipedia can't control the adding of links, so spam happens.

Consider this nofollow business a test, then. If it cuts down spam - brilliant.

the nofollow thing google created is an abomination of all that is sacred and great about internet. I hate it. If you don't want to vote for a site, don't link to it.

Just my 2cents.

Originally Posted by quantumcloud

the nofollow thing google created is an abomination of all that is sacred and great about internet. I hate it. If you don't want to vote for a site, don't link to it.

Just my 2cents.

I agree completely. Googles algo relies heavily on links to decide if a site is good or not.
So if the site is good enough to be refrenced by wikipeda the link should also count when google see it. If it isn't good enough, It should be removed from wikipedia.

Originally Posted by stOx

So if the site is good enough to be refrenced by wikipeda the link should also count when google see it. If it isn't good enough, It should be removed from wikipedia.

To tackle a problem like spam you can use remedial measures (put right something that's wrong) or you can use preventative measures (stop something wrong happening in the first place).

I quite agree that 'bad' links should be removed from Wikipedia. That's a remedial measure. A preventative measure is to remove the incentive for an unscrupulous webmaster to add their bad link in the first place (i.e. don't pass PR to them). Yes, that means that worthy sites don't get the potential PR benefit but that's a small price to pay.

Advantage: reduced spam
Disadvantage: individuals lose potential PR

Weighing up the above, I would always choose the reduced spam option, even if I was going to lose a little PR.

I'm sure that people will continue to be part of a collaborative process like this, even knowing that they won't get a PR reward, but satisfied that they are helping others by sharing information.

Just out of interest stOx, would knowing that you wouldn't benefit from any PR increase stop you from adding something useful to Wikipedia?