Feeds- 18
- Sphinn It!
"Nielsen Online has released data showing that Wikipedia’s 8,000% growth in the past 5 years is attributed to search. Really? Is that what happens when Google ranks all of your pages as #1? I had no idea."
4 Comments
4 Comments
Comments
Unbelievable stats - thanks for sphinning, Kevin.
Loads of SEOs complain about Wikipedia ranking well for everything, but I would sooner see them rank highly than a commercial site.
@sem4uEven when they take their material *from* commercial sites? I can’t help feeling it’s an unfair situation when Wikipedia can essentially rip the content off another site, automatically rank higher than the source and not even throw them back an unfollowed link. Out of interest, will your opinion change once Wikipedia decides to monetize their content? Jimmy Wales stated the following on 7th March 2008:While I continue to oppose the introduction of any advertising in Wikipedia, I also continue to agree that the discussion should evolve beyond a simple binary. I believe that if we looked at putting ads into the search results page (only), with the money earmarked for specific purposes (with strong community input into what those would be, either liberation of copyrights or support for the languages of the developing world or...). As the Foundation continues to evolve into a more professional organization capable of taking on and executing tasks (yay Sue and the growing staff!), it begins to be possible to imagine many uses of money that would benefit our core charitable goals. Lest I be misunderstood: I am not saying anything new, but saying exactly what I have said for many years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advertisements
@sem4u - even if the commercial site is more useful? So when you’re looking to buy something, you’d rather see an encyclopedia definition of that word than a site that can actually help?I actually consider myself to be pretty left-wing but have to say that this seems like a strange point of view.