Error Forum Blog

Wikipedia introduced the no-follow tag, presumably as way to prevent people using Wikipedia to pass link juice. Even when most Wikipedians wanted no-follow removed, Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, hs chosen to keep no-follow.

It seems that all Wikipedia links are not what they appear to be, however, as TechCrunch discover:

“It seems that while the nofollow tag is added to the standard outbound links, it isn’t applied to inter-wiki links, including links to Wikia, Wikipedia’s for-profit spin off. For example, on the Wikipedia page for Wikia there are a number of links to Wikia pages which do not contain the nofollow tag�

That appears very sly and SEO-ish, I must say. Hoarding the link juice and directing it towards your own web properties.

Interesting tid-bit:

“We have heard back from Jimmy Wales and he has stated that he was opposed to the nofollow policy and had only dropped his opposition to nofollow on advice from Google and others.“

Not really Well maybe, depending on your point of view…

The webmaster rules used to state that you must own the site on which your content was hosted.

However, now that it isn’t as easy, or quick, to get ranked as it once was, especially with new domains, the advantage has shifted to established sites and pages. Given that Google is showing Wikipedia results in almost every search, you’d be mad not to incorporate Wikipedia as part of your visibility strategy, wouldn’t you?

There is, of course, a catch.

The biggest catch is that you can’t control the content. Anyone can edit the content, and that may mean editing your content, and links, out. It has been suggested that some clever characters have gotten around this problem by scrambling up the Wikipedia hierarchy. Once in a position of authority, some Wikipedians appear to become more equal than others, and “open� quickly becomes “closed�, presumably under the guise of “preventing vandalism�.

Take, for instance, the SEO page. Note the very limited number of references and resources. Not to take anything away from those listed, but there are many other equally good, if not better, resources that should appear. Why so narrow? Note the amusing inaccuracies. Is Matt Cutts really a “famous SEO�? Now try and add your favourite resources, or point out other equally famous SEOs. Perhaps you are one yourself?

The code comments are curious: –No red links. Don’t add an article about yourself, either–They will be deleted quickly. –

Is the open, democratic and free Wikipedia turning into DMOZ?

However, not all pages have this problem. Some Wikipedia pages aren’t edited often, yet hold high search engine rankings. If your site is relevant, add a link. You may need to check the existence of this link on occassion as it is always possible someone else will edit it out, for whatever reason. Nirvana is finding the high-traffic Wikipedia page that doesn’t receive much attention from Wikipedia editors. Try to stay relevant and below radar.

Here’s a guide on how to edit Wikipedia.

Godwins law is this:

“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.[1]�

We could also adapt that law….call it the DMOZ Law:

“As a once “open� internet application grows older, the probability of someone getting seriously annoyed by authority and calling an editor a “snob-geek� approaches 1″.[1]

OK, that’s nowhere near as punchy, but there is, I’m sure we’ll all agree, some truth in it.

Anyway, it seems that Wikipedia is now more about taking stuff out, and editor discussions, and ego-tripping, than it is about putting stuff in.

Reminds me of someplace…