How strange. For some reason using my real name in a comment means I’m not taking credit for it. Could it be that my comment was not only critical of the post here, but easily refuted all arguments made?

Delete this if you wish, but you will have to live with censoring people who say things that you are afraid of acknowledging.

Because I chose not to use my e-mail address (to avoid needlessly exposing myself to potential spammers), I’m apparently hiding behind an e-mail. Bravo, good logic.

No, that must be coincidence. After all, the many people who don’t use their real name at all and hide behind anonymous e-mails are standing up for what they say. Them being supportive has nothing to do with it, right?

Part 2 (repeating the censored point that SEOs are afraid of):

1. The case study involves a case where some minor error was made on the Wikipedia page of someone who isn’t even that well known. The error was quickly fixed and the correction has persisted to this day.

How does this support your point? I see it supporting the point that Wikipedia has worked well to correct this very minor error. Why would anyone make such a huge deal over a minor error that’s easily corrected anyway?

It seems to me that people are just looking for fodder to criticize Wikipedia with and are not interested in facts.

2. Google has a flawed algorithm…how? Because it isn’t giving your websites super high PageRanks? I’m guessing that’s the reason most of the SEOs here are whining, especially the spamming SEOs. Boohoo. The algorithm is working exactly as intended–it’s weighting websites based on how linked they are.

Perhaps you meant to say the algorithm isn’t perfect? Of course, that would make the article more factual and less teenage angst ridden. Nothing is perfect.

3. Interesting how you state that Wikipedia’s “standard” is not truth. Let’s get the facts straight: this is about a single Wikipedia policy and there are many other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Wikipedia takes a neutral stance with respect to truth. It neither states that a given viewpoint is true, nor does it state that it’s untrue.

This is about the Wikipedia verifiability. This particular policy means that you need to be able to provide decent citations for things stated to back them up. By deciding that verifiability is a bad policy, you are in turn suggesting that required citations are a bad thing.

/Given an encyclopedia that millions can edit, how would you propose determining what the truth is for the purpose of the encyclopedia? What policy would you institute to gauge it? Whatever you think is true?/

Wikipedia policies are designed to help Wikipedia be detached and neutral, so the readers can decide for themselves and thus the issue of the numerous fights (and massive instability) that would result from arguing what the truth is become a moot point. Instead, the user can consult the cited sources to read and determine for themselves.

4. Nofollow is used to deter link spam. It completely negates the effect of link spam. It is no surprise that so many SEOs are complaining–they can’t spam Wikipedia.

They claim that they’re not spamming it, but really they’re adding links for vastly inferior sites when much better substitutes exist. Should we accept that by coincidence that they *just happen* to run a website with the best information to link to? Much, much more likely is the scenario that they’re trying to increase their PageRank as their motivation…which by definition makes it link spam.

5. Want a new Wikipedia article for your “niche”? It seems common for these SEOs to claim they need an article for a “niche.” Should Wikipedia allow any random person to create an article about their website as long as the website covers some super obscure niche (really it’s probably better covered by other sites)?

I’ve seen most of these new articles created to link to their own websites–99% of them are either obvious SEO spam and/or are non-notable (far too obscure).

6. It’s amazing to see the entitlement complex of SEOs here editing Wikipedia articles. Sorry, but you don’t own the articles and if the article is about your website, it doesn’t mean you get to automatically add anything.

A guideline was created to prevent people from editing articles about themselves or their products/services. It’s because it creates a conflict of interest–they’re the people most likely to be biased about the article. Look at the many cases of companies trying to whitewash bad facts from articles about themselves.

Do you really think it’s unreasonable to have a guideline preventing someone who obviously represents such a huge bias edit their own article?

Furthermore, there are STILL methods of changing it, if you were PATIENT and RESPECTFUL. Just discuss the changes you want on the talk page.

If it involves information that is not available from an external source, then you can’t put it on–otherwise anyone could come on a Wikipedia talk page claim “X is true” and get it added. Would you really be trustworthy of citations of the form “it was stated on Wikipedia”?

If you had been patient and listened, you would have been told this: go edit the official website to add the factual information you want included. As long as it’s relevant to the article, it can then be added, because they can cite the official website. But it’s unreasonable to have external sources, right?

7. In terms of trusting Wikipedia’s links. It’s nofollow that allows them to be more trustworthy, because it greatly eliminates link spam. What you’re saying is “we shouldn’t trust this source because the source takes measures to prevent untrustworthy links from being added.”

–

I’m saving this writing in case it’s deleted. From reading various comments on this blog and the blog owner himself, it seems that it’s just an outlet for bitter SEOs who want something for nothing.

Wikipedia is a scourge? Hardly. At worst it bumps your website down about 2 notches in Google’s listing.

If you don’t like Google, then stop using it; being hypocritical would be bad. I should note that Yahoo (which uses AllTheWeb) uses a similar algorithm, so you’re in the same boat there. But hey–lets not criticize that one.

Google is ruined by a few people in postitions of power who shouldnt be tossed aside lightly but thrown with great force. SPLAT – sorry nothing personal – just like Google! They have something that could change the world for the better but instead they nickle and dime us to death with their cheese paring. limberger too!

From the perspective of SEO, Google really needs to sort out the authority it has placed on Wiki pages and subjects as it tends to fill out SERPS too often. It’s almost as if they created a “lazy algo” that just defaults to Wiki for lack of better content.

Either way, there is definately room for improvement on Google’s algo in the Wiki department.

GW – what do you see going on at Yahoo, Live/MSN and Ask relative to the Wiki subject?

you have an opinion you stand up and take credit for it and don’t hide behind null@null.null as an email