News Source: 1
Published: Jul 15, 2007 - 05:10 pm
Story Found By: Lyndon 2167 Days ago
Category: Link Building
22 Comments
Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.
News Source: 1
Published: Jul 15, 2007 - 05:10 pm
Story Found By: Lyndon 2167 Days ago
Category: Link Building
22 Comments
Upcoming Conferences
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
- SMX East - October 1-3, 2013
- SMX Stockholm - October 14-15, 2013
- SMX Milan - November 7-8, 2013
- SMX Social Media Marketing - November 20-21, 2013
- SMX Israel - January 2014
- SMX West - March 11-13, 2014
- SMX Munich - March 25-26, 2014
- SMX Sydney - April 2014
- SMX London - May 2014
- SMX Advanced - June 2014
Latest News From Marketing Land
- Yelp Advertisers Now Able To Promote Transactions Directly From Yelp Business Listings
- Amazon Calls Minnesota Sales Tax Law Unconstitutional & Closes Minnesota Associate Accounts
- Marketing Day: June 18, 2013
- Google Makes First Amendment Challenge To Publish FISA Request Counts
- Digital Advertising Agencies 2013: A Buyer’s Guide
- - See more news at Marketing Land -
Upcoming Webcasts
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Digital Marketing Depot. Upcoming online events include:
- Get PPC Results – Optimize Your Landing Experience - Jul 18
- Link building made simple: FAQ’s on link building - Jul 16
- Email+Social = Profitable Client Retention - Jun 26
- Enhanced Campaigns: New Effective PPC Techniques - Jun 19
- Impacting Local SEO Rankings with Local Business Listing Management - Jun 27
Research:
- Enterprise Social Media Management Software 2013
- B2B Marketing Automation Tools 2013: The Buyer’s Guide
- Enterprise SEO Tools 2013: A Buyer’s Guide
Whitepapers:
- 7 Inbound Marketing Service Ideas to Grow Your Agency
- PPC Bid Management Guide
- The Marketer’s Guide to Driving ROI From Facebook Advertising
- Collaborative Customer Interactions Management
- How To Create a Data-Driven Dynasty
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- SearchCap: The Day In Search, June 18, 2013
- DuckDuckGo Passes 3 Million Searches, Just 8 Days After Hitting 2 Million
- Enhanced Campaigns Countdown: Rising CPC Insights & Migration Tips From iProspect
- Dive Deep! Attend A Marketing Workshop At SMX East In NYC – Register Now & Save!
- Google Officially Launches Knowledge Graph Carousel For Local Search
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
Too right, everyone complains that Wikipedia ranks to well for everything and then everyman and his dog links to them, I don’t get it.
It’s funny. Every time I link to Wikipedia, I go through a huge debate. Like do they really need another link pointing at them? Isn’t there something better I can do? My "Who’s The Animal House Of Search" story: http://searchengineland.com/070703-122048.php Was a good example of my soul searching here. I had to reference all these comedy movies. Not when it comes to movies, IMDB leaps to mind as THE source over Wikipedia. Yet in some cases, Wikipedia did have the better information. Sadly, in part that’s because they probably drew from IMDB in addition to other sources. It’s also because unlike IMDB, I don’t have to hunt through multiple pages -- Wikipedia gives me one giant overview. So they got the links for some of the movies -- and still will in other articles -- when they’ve earned it. But if I see others that are worthy, absolutely -- I’m giving it to them. One thing that would help is if Wikipedia perhaps would flag key references that get used when compiling a page. Sure, they have references, but sometimes it seems like one reference in particular is relied upon. In those cases, why not call out that key resource?
Deffo, link to them if you have to but if there is a choice always go the other way.
Like you said, sometimes it is just easier to link to Wikipedia. I agree. But as Danny said, sometimes, the information there is rock solid. I try to only link to wikipedia, when I feel the content is accurate.
Define "deserves"? Surely, a free resource that usually has what you want deserves the link most?
If you do link to them and you’ve struggled with the decision, just slap a condom on it like you would any other link you don’t fully respect/trust. I would find it hard to ever link to the site with 100% confidence, as there’s no way to know whether the information you’ll point to will be accurate a few minutes later. To me, that’s exactly why "nofollow" was created - for links that we’re not sure will lead to trustworthy information.
Maybe there other people out there more deserving of the link, but until they get into the top ten on page one of Google, it’s going to be Wikipedia for breakfast, lunch, tea and supper. Personally, I at least try to read the stuff I anticipate linking to, which often works wonders when trying figure out whether the recipient is worth the link at all...
Before someone accuses me of a being a complete arsehole, this discussion was intended to be a news story linking to http://www.alistercameron.com/2007/07/13/linking-to-wikipedia-is-lazy-and-a-disservice-to-someone-else-who-really-deserves-the-link/ But it was one of my first goes with Sphinn and I submitted as a discussion when I should have submitted as a news story, it does look atif I have simply pinched Alister Camerons idea and relabeled it as my own. This was not my intention and is not something I do, I apologies if anyone thought these were my words, all credit should go to Alister Cameron. I put it down to the excitement of using the site for the first time and an excellent Chicken Madras. What a dork! Great discussion though.
I do reference Wikipedia because I think some of their explanations are coherent and well written, while offering a good general overview that works. If its an individual or invented term, I usually default to the creator or ’official website’. Then again I always nofollow all my Wikipedia links... This WP plugin might help: http://whatjapanthinks.com/wikipedia-nofollow/
It makes sense that Wikipedia ranks well seeing that Google’s ranking algorithm was founded on the concept that the best science reports were the ones that were referred to most by other science reports.
Bloggarts, like school children, have a lot of assignments to get out of the way so they scribble down some thoughts, reference appropriate encyclopedia entries, and hey presto it’s party time again. I join with Alister Cameron in suggesting many commentators are lazy and further name many foolish for taking SERP as a sign of quality rather than popularity. Google has selfish revenue reasons for giving prominence to Wikipedia, et al and adopting ’universal’ search. But that is another topic for another time. As web readers can, on their own, refer to Wikipedia or online dictionaries and glossaries, etc., bloggarts should, as best practice, directly reference topic leaders and experts. Doing otherwise simply emphasises their laziness, ignorance of the field under discussion, or that they are simply sharing an opinion. We all love a good gossip, especially backed by Wikipedian or National Enquirer factoids.
One major reason I reference WP is due to the fact that I can count on the link being active in years to come. There’s nothing more annoying than having to deal with rotten links or pages whose content changed. But I agree, I am not helping deserving sites...
If the page in question has good content and ranks well then who cares if its Wikipedia you are linking to. Yes, there are always other sites to link to but just because Wiki is popular doesn’t mean your selling out if you link to it. I’d rather link to Wiki if its outranking John Doe’s site. We all love to hate the beautiful people in life but you know you all can’t stop looking :)
Is the Wikipedia entry the best answer to the question: "where would my reader want to go next??" I would try and think of something more original, otherwise it’s like ordering pizza for the group because you know that’s safe and everyone will agree on it. But often Wikipedia does have a pretty comprehensive answer to my own questions.
Like Rand and MattC said - don’t trust it, nofollow it. I don’t know that just because someone references wP means they’re lazy. Who in the hell wants to sift through 50 pages of crap just to reference or quote something decent? Sure, not all WP is worth a damn, but not all of it is crap. One persons laziness is another’s being efficient.
Hey Lyndon, no hard feelings! Just to clarify, my post wasn’t meant to be an attack on Wikipedia, so much as a request to bloggers to be considerate of who they link to and why... Links are the currency of the internet and should be given out with due consideration for what they mean in the SERPs. If Wikipedia just gets the links all the time, then it rises to the top of the SERPs for, I think, a less than adequate reason, not least because it pushes someone else out of that spot. For some/many terms, that may be ok... but for others, not. -Alister
Great post, I am guilty of doing this myself... The only thing is that users will likely view Wikipedia as having more credibility than another blog or site that they have never heard of. Sure, this may be a good way to give credit where credit is due and expose new resourceful blogs to users, but there is a slight trade off.
Wiki is like my ex-wife, a sad fact of life. I personally think you should have to go to college before you’re allowed to contribute to any official archive of accumulated human knowledge. There are many talented folks who contribute to Wiki. There are idiots and spammers. Google makes Wiki the global authority for way to many people. We all know a significant percentage of it is crap. In this case study the weaker and less credible content sometimes wins, which was never the case with those beautiful books my parents bought me when I was a child.
Its really disturbing when sites that should rank for things like their name can not rank for such easy terms. Nothing against Wiki, but those making the sites ought to practice a little SEO prior to going live. For just a little SEO, it isn’t that hard to compete with them... Thanks for the article Alister. I am guilty of using them in posts a little too often.
I was going to write against the sentiment at first, since I think the majority of Wikipedia entries are pretty good. Why deprive your visitors of the best source you know about. Then I began to think further and began to go with the idea. I don’t think it’s a disservice to someone else who deserves the link since that may not be true. However to get more variety into search results, it may be an idea to help someone out who should be doing better. OK they didn’t do their SEO well, but that’s true of a lot of people. So if they really deserve to be mentioned, then do so. Indeed go out of your way a little to spot deserving cases. It’s called link-love after all. :)
I disagree, the Wikipedia has alot of good information (and bad) and when I link to it I feel that I am rewarding this great community effort. Also I link to others as well. What I find is that most other sites do not approach giving a definition of some term as well as the wiki. When I link too the wiki it is usally for come technical term that will help a reader that might not be as familiar some help so they can understand the artcile a little more.
Wikipedia always gives me the exact information that I’m looking for. Until I can EASILY find a site that can provide me with the same information, I have no problem giving them credit.