Campaign to Reduce Wikipedia’s PageRank to Zero



Stop Wikipedia's NOFOLLOW! When news spread that Wikipedia was going to add the “NOFOLLOW” attribute to all external links, in an effort to reduce spam, I suggested that the issue could be resolved if everyone linking to Wikipedia, added a NOFOLLOW and effectively reduce the value of a Wikipedia link. That would take care of the issue in the same blinkered way that Wikipedia deemed appropriate.

That sentiment appeared to resonate with a few other bloggers, so I’ve decided to turn it more into a campaign. Until Wikipedia realizes that its popularity (and link value) has only come about because hundreds of thousands of lowly webmasters linked to the site without using the NOFOLLOW tag, I plan to include NOFOLLOW on any future links to Wikipedia and will display the above logo on my site as a battle-cry to rally others.

Wikipedia is all powerful, because the masses made it that way. Send Wikipedia a message and display either this sign or your own!

PS. For the record, I’m not a Wikipedia spammer and I have no links to Marketing Pilgrim from them. So this action is based on principle and not any personal loss.

PPS. Do I really think I can reduce Wikipedia’s PageRank to zero? No, but it will be fun trying!


Digg!

  • http://www.petertdavis.net Peter Davis

    Well, SEOs have always had the talent to spam bad sites to the top of the search rankings, it will be interesting to see if they have the talent to spam (yea, I know it’s not spam, but can’t think of a better term for it) a good site to the bottom of the rankings.

    (in case you’re feeling offended by this comment, please realize it’s tongue-in-cheek)

  • DarkMatter

    Forgive me, but this seems a childish response.

    They have very good reasons for doing it. They think they are serving the goals of their ambitious project by making it less appealing to marketers. While I wouldn’t mind some link love from WP, I don’t blame them a bit.

  • http://www.lunametrics.com pratt

    I think Andy is more upset at their resolution to just add nofollow tags to all of their links. It seems like they wanted a quick fix, and didn’t want to take the time to implement a process to reduce spam and to allow trusted links.

  • http://www.zzmarketing.co.uk MarkZZ

    I’m still on the fence with this issue. If nofollowing will increase the quality of Wikipedia, it is really something they should go for, however chucking all of the links on the “bad” pile is a bit extreme. I think Mr. Cutts hit the nail on the head with:

    “In my ideal world, Wikipedia would add nofollow to their untrusted links, but work out ways to allow trusted links to remove the nofollow attribute.”

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    What if everyone started adding the “nofollow” link to all external links? We’d be in a huge mess. Wikipedia dominates the search results because of all the backlinks they have pointing at them.

    DarkMatter, I don’t expect my response to achieve anything other than highlighting the childish action by Wikipedia. They effectively decided they didn’t like some of the kids, so kicked them all out of the play pen. Well, if every kid stopped playing with Wikipedia, they wouldn’t have to worry about sharing their toys in the first place. The phrase “biting the hand that feeds” springs to mind. :-)

  • http://www.searchrank.com/blog David Wallace

    I would have to think that search marketers comprise so little of the overall population that links to Wikipedia which would include journalists, people writing research papers, web sites that contain any kind of glossary, educational sites, etc. While it might be fun to try, I think it will have little to no impact. Kind of like David fighting a million Goliaths and still with only 5 stones. ;)

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    Nice call David – maybe others will pick up their own stones. ;-)

    Honestly, my campaign is really just highlighting how silly Wikipedia’s knee-jerk reaction was in the first place.

  • http://www.zzmarketing.co.uk MarkZZ

    Andy, don’t know if “What if everyone started adding the “nofollow” link to all external links?…” was in reply to me, but my $0.02

    I do think Wikipedia has gone overboard but not many websites are in the same situation with thousands of pages of new content submitted every day, even if the work is distributed there must be a lot of poor quality/spam content to trawl through. I guess Wikipedia thinks its “brand” is strong enough that people will use it as a standalone search for specifics, or maybe they’re just relying on the fact that most people will be too lazy/not know about nofollows so they’ll keep all that link juice to themselves?

    There are loads of options they could do, such as voting whether links are relevant/spammy, introducing some kind of Google-esque sandbox/waiting period for new links. I blogged about this several months ago, what would happen if hundreds of major websites start nofollowing links, it does kind of put a dent in how some search engines work. The big brands, using other sites to boost themselves up, then essentially cutting off the hands (links) that raised them to this position.

    After that rant, I’ll always be nofollowing my Wiki links, just out of principle ‘cos I’m mean!

  • http://seo-theory.blogspot.com/ Michael Martinez

    It would make more sense, in my opinion, for people to simply start linking to Britannica articles (which are editorially vetted and more accurate in general than the Wiki articles).

    Of course I realize that link-dependent SEOs want Wikipedia to let them abuse it again, but this should be a lesson to people who refuse to learn how to do proper search engine optimization.

    Wikipedia only took this action because of invasive link dropping, which is abusive. I fully applaud the decision and hope they never turn off the NoFollows.

  • Pingback: » Wikipedia en nofollow : the Web strikes back - Malaiac attack()

  • http://probargainhunter.com Yan

    As clever as it may sound in reality the campaign will do very little to Wikipedia page rank. Too many bloggers are ignorant of how search engines work.

    Hopefully it will at least get the Wikipedia team thinking.

    I am surprised Matt Cutts supported the move. :-(

  • http://www.petertdavis.net Peter Davis

    Why would Matt Cutts not support it? Is there anyone more vested in combating link spam than he?

  • http://www.championcheap.com Tom

    It seems logical to put a nofollow on inbound links to wikipedia. As everybody can modify the content we can’t certify its quality :D

  • Pingback: WikiPedia Kills SEO()

  • Pingback: NOFOLLOW Wikipedia to PageRank Zero Campaign()

  • http://tinfinger.blogspot.com Paul Montgomery

    I’d rather see a campaign to get Google et al to take Wikipedia out of their search results entirely, as Shelley Powers suggested. That has more chance of making a difference.

  • Dave

    Cry more, spammer.

  • Oh, and another thing
  • http://www.wikipedia.org/ Brion Vibber

    “I am surprised Matt Cutts supported the move. :-(”

    Well, he personally asked me to enable nofollow last year, so I’m not too surprised. :)

    “I think Andy is more upset at their resolution to just add nofollow tags to all of their links. It seems like they wanted a quick fix, and didn’t want to take the time to implement a process to reduce spam and to allow trusted links.”

    Yep! It’s a quick fix until better tools are ready. I said as much in my announcement and requested that parties interested in helping with that get involved.

    (Note that the majority of our sites have had nofollow on for a couple of years. Only portions of the English-language Wikipedia have had it off; but while it gets the most attention from watchers it’s also the most attractive for spammers.)

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    You’ve gotta love the bright-spark that thought it would be fun to leave three links to Wikipedia in a comment, yet forgot that WordPress automatically ads a “nofollow” to comment links. :-)

  • http://www.wikipedia.org/ Brion Vibber

    Thanks for the traffic, comment #18! (You *do* realize that that just *sends us traffic* and *doesn’t hurt us in any way*, right?)

  • Oh, and another thing

    My mistake – I assumed that you were just disreputable, didn’t realise you were hypcritical too, Andy.

    Explain to us again why it’s a bad thing for Wikipedia not to give free Google rankings to any random spammer who cares to add a link, but a good thing for your blog to do exactly the same thing?

  • http://www.associatedcont.com/rose_hunt Rose Hunt

    Andy Beal,
    I would love to do a follow-up story on you and the campaign you are starting. If interested, contact me- you know where to find me.
    Rose Hunt

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    “Oh, and another thing” – I don’t claim the comments section of my blog is a trusted resource for information.

  • http://www.wikipedia.org/ Brion Vibber

    Andy, perhaps you’re not familiar with Wikipedia’s actual trust claims?

  • Pingback: dwvd.de: no no no no no nofollow?! - Der Wunderer von Deutschland()

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    Brion, I’m familiar with the disclaimer, but it’s kind of hard to hide behind that AND call yourself an “Encyclopedia”.

    Why not just get rid of external links altogether? You’re abusing the nofollow tag. It’s supposed to be used when you link to a source that cannot be trusted or vouched for. By adding to every external link, what does that say about the trust we can place in Wikipedia? If Wikipedia is built on external information and you’ve just disowned all external links, where does that leave us?

  • http://www.wikipedia.org/ Brion Vibber

    It’s not an abuse, Andy; it is exactly what the nofollow tag is for. Nofollow allows you to make a clickable link without making the implied statement to machine indexers that the link is known by the site maintainer to be reliable — which is exactly what you want to be able to indicate for spam magnets such as user-submitted content.

    Of course, as I’ve already said, and you’ve ignored, we would like to see a more fine-grained approach in the future which takes into account human review.

    I guess it’s easier to be indignant over a misunderstanding and play a childish publicity stunt, though. (Probably more fun, too!)

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    Absolutely this is a publicity stunt. I think Wikipedia over-reacted and made a hasty decision. People have been spamming Wikipedia for years, so an extra month or two to figure out a practical solution, would not have hurt.

    Why not follow Matt Cutts advice?

    “If an off-domain link is made by an anonymous or unauthenticated user, I’d use nofollow on that link. Once a user has done a certain number of posts/edits, or has been around for long enough to build up trust, then those nofollows could be removed and the links could be trusted. Anytime you have a user that you’d trust, there’s no need to use nofollow links.”

    There has to be a better solution. I’m glad you’ve stopped by to share your side of the story – I truly do appreciate it. If this publicity stunt has helped speed up the process for a better solution, that’s all I could have hoped for. Unless you really were worried your PageRank would reduce to zero. ;-)

  • http://www.redflymarketing.com/ Dave Davis

    Congrats on making the front page on Digg Andy. I fully support your quest. Why not give some love back to the information and people who helped give it it’s power?

    WikiPedia has trust. It’s built it up over time. I fully agree with allowing trusted users give trusted nofollow links.

  • http://www.douglaskarr.com Doug Karr

    That’s an interesting proposition… how about a wikipedia nofollow plugin for WordPress? I may be able to pop that out this weekend.

  • http://knaddison.com/drupal/just-say-no-follow-wikipedia-links greggles

    Well, if you use Drupal and you want to join in “nofollow me to Wikipedia” you can use the http://knaddison.com/drupal/just-say-no-follow-wikipedia-links module that I just created which automatically adds nofollow to all links to en.wikipedia.org.

    Enjoy!

  • http://probargainhunter.com Yan

    “Well, he personally asked me to enable nofollow last year, so I’m not too surprised.”

    …which is the same as…

    “Use the source and don’t give credit back”.

    This is so much against the philosophy of the web, I struggle to believe Matt would have said that.

    Aren’t search engines work because the algorithms they use imitate the rules of the society? Or do you mean to say Wikipedia is above this “noise”?

  • Nick

    “Until Wikipedia realizes that its popularity (and link value) has only come about because hundreds of thousands of lowly webmasters linked to the site without using the NOFOLLOW tag…”

    You are leaving out an important difference: The links to Wikipedia were created by those “lowly webmasters” based on Wikipedia’s merit; and most of the external links added to Wikipedia are motivated by personal gain.

  • http://www.seo4fun.com/blog/ Halfdeck

    Jesus Christ, first SEOs whine because Wikipedia is outranking their clients, now they whine because they’ve lost what they mistakenly thought was a link source. Those outbound links on wikipedia wasn’t passing much PageRank or link juice to begin with.

    “so an extra month or two to figure out a practical solution, would not have hurt.”

    That’s easy for you to say Andy. Why don’t you actually think up a solution and help code it into Wikipedia instead of waging this silly little anti-Wikipedia campaign of yours?

    Here’s an idea: Use PeopleRank. Each Wikipedia member can recommend X number of members as members they trust. The amount of PeopleRank passed on depends on the recommendation he/she has gotten from other members. Links added or approved by members with PeopleRank >= X are nofollow-free.

  • Pingback: » Wikipedia and nofollow - Malaiac Attack()

  • http://www.zzmarketing.co.uk MarkZZ

    Michael Martinez “It would make more sense, in my opinion, for people to simply start linking to Britannica articles (which are editorially vetted and more accurate in general than the Wiki articles).”

    I thought WP was found to be *more accurate* than Britannica after a study? WP is pretty well vetted too!

  • mc

    Aha, I think everyone is missing the cunning plan here.

    Wikipedia uses nofollow to remove the incentive for spammers, but Google can quite easily just choose to ignore the nofollow attribute on Wikipedia without telling anyone (well except Jimbo). Everyone wins!

  • Dan

    Wikipedia gets the position it does by having genuinely useful articles. Wikipedia articles don’t tend to get the top stop unless they’re actually good.

    Page rank is only one of the things that go into Google’s “secret sauce.” If all the sites that are part of the commercial/SEO/spam network stopped linking to Wikipedia, Wikipedia articles would still get high ranks because of their actual content, and because there would still be links to Wikipedia from plenty of noncommercial sources.

  • Pingback: Nofollow me to Wikipedia - Adult Webmaster Blog()

  • http://www.ehlunding.de/ Tim

    Wikipedia tries to fight Spam an SEO-Links on their platform and that is okay, but this decision is only fighting their own reputation.

  • Pingback: SEO Ltd - Search Engine Optimisation & Pay Per Click Management Cheshire» Blog Archive » Wikipedia Using “No Follow” Attribute()

  • http://svt.name SvT

    i’ll use NOFOLLOW tag to Wikipedia .. :(

  • Pingback: SEO berSZerkers » Blog Archive » Wikipédia : on dévermine !()

  • http://www.lsmedia.com dmerton

    Andy, I understand your thinking, but by us using NOFOLLOW in our own links we’d really be doing the work for Wikipedia in a roundabout way.

    Does anyone feel that the more NOFOLLOW gets used, the less effective it will become? Just like any other method a search engine uses to determine ranking, eventually it gets abused to the point of it being devalued… ex: meta tags, subdomains, link farms, etc… Furthermore the easier these things are to use, the more abused they become. NOFOLLOW will eventually end up in the SEO boneyard and this will all be a moot point.

    BTW – according to the Wikipedia, these things happened today in history:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_24
    = )

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    I agree dmerton. I think that NOFOLLOW is already being used for more than it was intended for.

  • http://www.associatedcontent.com/rose_hunt Rose Hunt

    Andy Beal,
    I asked, you didn’t answer, so I went ahead with what I had. Hope you don’t mind. It is on the front page of Associated Content after all.

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/132418/wikipedia_under_attack_for_nofollow.html

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    Apologies Rose, I missed your request among the others. Great article though, many thanks!

  • http://www.associatedcontent.com/rose_hunt Rose Hunt

    You’re welcome. :)

    BTW, I love your spam protection. I wish everyone used it. I hate trying to read scrambled letters mixed in with chaotic lines.

  • http://www.rankfirst.info/dblog simleon

    I’m with you. I have an Italien SEO blog and I alredy sprea the word! We will stop wikis nofollow.

    Good job

  • http://bloodydude.blog.com Bloody dude

    Andy, great idea!

    You did get a lot of backlinks with no “additional” tags:)

    I don’t see ANY problem with Wiki nofollows. Sure, I work with Wiki. But I’m getting traffic, no PR.

    By the way, why everybody’s dreaming about PR???

    As for me, Wiki’s rankings are great due to trust, no backlinks.

    You need to work hard, if you’re going to keep interest for campaign:)

    P.S. Sorry for poor English.

  • http://www.douglaskarr.com Doug Karr

    Andy,

    I’m in!

    Doug

  • Pingback: Campaign to Reduce Wikipedia’s PageRank to Zero | Sorvoja.com()

  • Pingback: JazzcatSEO » Reduce Wikipedia’s PageRank to Zero()

  • http://whatjapanthinks.com Ken Y-N

    If you’re using WordPress, may I suggest my plugin for those of you wanting to turn off your linkjuice for Wikipedia?

    http://whatjapanthinks.com/wikipedia-nofollow/

  • William

    I see you’re complaining vigorously about a bunch of volunteers not doing enough work to please you. Just to check, you have spent a lot of time removing spammy links from Wikipedia, right? In which case, I look forward to you posting the link to your Wikipedia contributions page.

    Or wait? Are you offering to write the code that carefully discerns which links to use nofollow on? Don’t forget that to run on one of the world’s highest-volume web sites, your code will have to be carefully performance tested. Post a link here, and I’m sure you can get it critiqued.

    No? Hmmm… Then where do you feel you get the moral authority to boss around a bunch of volunteers whom you apparently haven’t done anything to aid? Really, I’m all ears. Next maybe you can post a YouTube video of you sitting in an armchair while criticizing people people picking up litter for not doing it the way you want.

  • Pingback: Toile-filante » Archive du blog » Wikipedia et nofollow, la vrai-fausse solution()

  • Pingback: The Wikipedia nofollow brouhaha continues » 世論 What Japan Thinks - Japanese Opinion Polls and Market Research Translated into English()

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    William, that’s the funniest comment in days, thanks for making me laugh. I tell you what, how about everyone that ever linked to Wikipedia, go back and add a nofollow to their link. That way, Wikipedia will lose it’s PageRank and spammers won’t be an issue anymore.

    Better yet, we can ask Google to simply ignore ALL inbound links to Wikipedia and it will lose it’s value.

    Wikipedia become popular and useful, because the community linked to it and vouched for its credibility. Not linking back (and passing PR) to that same community is hypocritical.

  • http://www.petertdavis.net Peter Davis

    I still can’t wrap my head around the why you believe people have a right to get a non-nofollow link from Wikipedia.

    The criticizing people people picking up litter for not doing it the way you want analogy was pretty apt, on the other hand.

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    External links are used whenever Wikipedia references information that is gleaned from an external source.

    Listen, I’m all for getting rid of the spam. But if an editor/volunteer ads a legitimate external source, it should pass on the PR value. If it’s a crap link, it should be removed.

    Heck, if you just said that an external source link had a nofollow attribute for the first 30 days, then automatically has that attribute removed after 30 days, surely that would be enough time for the Wikipedia to weed out the spam links and disuade those spammers looking to add links in order to win a silly SEO contest.

  • Pingback: DivERSant продвижение сайтов » Кампания «Снизим pagerank википедии до нуля»()

  • http://www.seo4fun.com/blog/ Halfdeck

    “why you believe people have a right to get a non-nofollow link from Wikipedia.”

    Exactly, they don’t.

    If I linked to every marketingpilgrim post, does that give me the right to demand a reciprocal link?

    Absolutely not.

    Nofollowing all external links is going overboard. But no one yet has proposed a better solution.

  • Pingback: Peter T Davis » Wikipedia nofollows is best thing since sliced bread()

  • http://knaddison.com/drupal/just-say-no-follow-wikipedia-links greggles

    Actually, people have proposed (and even created) better solutions.

    Blacklist plugins:

    +Wordpress blacklist plugin:
    http://whatjapanthinks.com/wikipedia-nofollow/

    +Drupal blacklist plugin:
    http://knaddison.com/drupal/just-say-no-follow-wikipedia-links

    +Andy’s policy change based upon a “30 days to no-nofollow”.

    Granular solutions are out there beyond this binary “all external are nofollow” system that they currently have.

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    Halfdeck…if I find something valuable on your site, and I reference it on mine. Would you expect a link back to your site? Would you be annoyed if I linked but used the nofollow?

    I think my idea of putting all external Wikipedia links on “probation” for the first 30 days, is viable.

  • http://christeredwards.com Christer Edwards

    I think Wikipedia has grown in value and popularity based on its content, not because of its link popularity. While the word may have been spread by “lowly webmasters” linking to it I don’t have much argument with the decision. The reason is that Wikipedia is offering free information and strictly generates money from donations. They are not benefiting from the inbound links in the same way that we might, by building reputation and then advertising. It’s people like us on the other side that could potentially lose anything from the decision.. and we should be more worried about contributing vs leeching.

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    Hi Christer. Think about it though. Where did

    Wikipedia get that content? Other resources, web sites perhaps?

    Who contributed that content? Other web site owners maybe?

    And how did anyone ever find Wikipedia to start with? Maybe following another link?

    Wikipedia may be a huge powerful site, that delivers great value, now, but it wasn’t always that way.

  • http://www.petertdavis.net Peter Davis

    I think you’re just beating a dead horse at this point Andy. You’re not going to convince Wikipedians over to your point of view by browbeating them.

    I think several people have already offered up the best suggestion. If you want it changed, then take a leading role in changing it.

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    Totally agree Peter. I’m done with this topic – could you ask commenters to stop antagonizing me? :-)

  • http://www.petertdavis.net Peter Davis

    I’ll stop antagonizing you. How’s that? ;)

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    LOL

  • Pingback: Online Bulletin » New Online Bulletin Linking Policy()

  • http://www.google-stories.com Lyononline

    “By the way, why everybody’s dreaming about PR???”

    Weird question. Maybe just to be reconized by search engines and get more people reading your articles?

  • Pingback: Jesse Wright » A campaign to reduce the Page Rank of Wikipedia()

  • http://cyberita.blogspot.com Anand

    oh, come on dude..grow up..Wikipedia is much more of a value than crappy blogs like yours AND MINE. As a student, I have always used Wikipedia to read things that are not even in the books that are regarded bibles in the areas.

    So, get a life.Stop Spamming, Stop your freaking campaigns..

  • Pingback: » Nofollow and wordpress why I’m removing the rewrite - » Blog Yack Yack()

  • Pingback: Cornwallseo.com » Is your Blog “Link Lite”?()

  • http://www.tecnocracia.com.br Manoel Netto
  • Pingback: WP plugin stops plugging WP -- Chip’s Quips()

  • Pingback: » Give a little link love say no to nofollow Blog Yack Yack()

  • http://amifamousnow.com franky

    Now this is great linkbait. Well done!
    And then SEOs wonder why Jake Average doesn’t like them.

  • Pingback: » Give a little link love say no to nofollow remove the link condoms Blog Yack Yack()

  • Pingback: Shawn Blog » Your comments get indexed on shawnblog.com()

  • Pingback: CapeCodSEO » Thoughts on Wikipedia and Bad Link Building Practices()

  • http://jsbi.blogspot.com Jason S

    That’s really cool to know!!
    I will try joining in…

    Cheers!!
    Jason S
    I Blog at : http://jsbi.blogspot.com

  • Pingback: Questioning NoFollow » Webomatica()

  • Pingback: the tweney review » Blog Archive » How to strike back at Wikipedia’s silly nofollow policy.()

  • http://www.ipgp.net Lucian

    You have nofollow too on your blog ? let’s start a campain to bring your PR to 0…

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    Lucian, I only use nofollow on comment links, not sites I link to from the blog. Why do I use nofollow on comments? Cos you never know when some idiot might stop by, leave a smart-ass comment and then expect to get some link-juice from me. ;-)

  • http://www.petertdavis.net Peter Davis

    Kind of in the same way Wikipedia doesn’t know when some idiot might stop by and spam a link and then expect to get some link-juice from them?

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    Hi Peter, glad to see you back on this. ;-)

    That would be Wikipedia’s problem. If they want to let just anyone add a link to the main content, they should police it.

    I don’t allow just anyone to post to my blog and if I decide that someone has contributed to the content of this site, I give them credit and a full link. Wikipedia should not penalize those who’s content has helped build Wikipedia.

    Comparing links in a comments section, with Wikipedia is apples and oranges.

  • http://www.petertdavis.net Peter Davis

    Haha, you’re pretty good at baiting me, that’s for sure. ;)

    But, I think that both blog comments and Wikipedia’s external links both fit quite well in the “anywhere that users can add links by themselves” that Google suggests for using nofollow tags.

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    I still don’t buy that argument. The external resources links on Wikipedia are the same as a “hat-tip” or “credit to” link on a blog post.

  • http://www.petertdavis.net Peter Davis

    They should be. Certainly. But, only someone truly naive would believe that they are.

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    True, and only someone truly naive would believe people leave comments on blogs without thinking how it might bring traffic to their own site. ;-)

  • Pingback: SEO, SEM and Some New SEO/ SEM Issues | Jason Fisch()

  • http://www.jfischweb.com Jason

    I am not happy about the whole thing, however as many have said, Wikipedia just has too much page rank already. Check out my blog for my full opinion on the matter: http://jfischweb.com/blog/?p=12

  • http://www.petertdavis.net Peter Davis

    Loooooooooooooordy the irony here is so thick!

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    I have nothing more to add Peter, but I thought I’d bring us to 100 comments. :-)

  • http://www.timlinden.com/blog/ Tim Linden

    I wonder if adding -wikipedia.com to all our searches would affect it any? If the big G sees everyone is trying to search for information but NOT on wikipedia, I would think they would track that too and rank it less.

  • http://www.petertdavis.net Peter Davis

    Considering that Wikipedia is often the only relevant result, doing that would be silly.

  • http://solportocarrero.blogspot.com Dr Infarto

    The spanish Wikipedia is pure trash, I support this campaign.

  • Pingback: The Wikipedia nofollow brouhaha continues » 世論 What Japan Thinks()

  • http://ansell.blogspot.com Peter

    Seriously, do the “lowly webmasters” really expect that their link into Wikipedia ensures that they will get fair treatment from the site. Thats like saying that I could link to you and you would have to link back to me.

    The actual majority of Wikipedia links are likely to come from random people who link there expecting nothing back.

    Of course, if you make your livelihood from the External links section of wikipedia then I suggest you read their policy on that section of articles and think up a better way to screw with PageRank for your own good. Wikipedia is a privately owned website which can do what it wants with its links and if it thinks spam is as bad as you think it is here in your comments then they are entitled to use available features to protect themselves.

  • http://birds.allaboutthese.org Jonix

    great debate, and great comments :)

    Well wikipedia has grown too much. It has now thousands or “millions” of topics. It is time to make some changes, and put some rules. It’s simple, a better login/register user module. With that module, only registered users could review, add and edit the pages. The system with that could control who have written and what. When someone add a link, the system would send emails to registered users saying that user XPTO add a link ABC in section XPTO and the other registered users could review the link with wikipedia policies. Every new link added, should stay with nofollow for 15 days, and if a registered user review the link (let’s say in 1-2 days, the nofollow was over. If after 15 days, the link was not reviewed by no one (wich is almost impossible), the system would delete automatically the link.

    With a good group of programmers this is a simple thing to do and will not take too long. Until such a system is implemented, wikipedia should be maintened has it is. A system like this or other that gives this kind of control, yes, should be implemented.

  • Pingback: No Follow Or Do Follow? » PPC Expert & SEO Strategist Blog by Gordon Choi()

  • Joan

    ¡Fóllatelos!

  • http://blog.wirepaq.com Sajid Iqbal

    I think this is a shameful way to deceive such information-rich site. The fact is that people so-called SEO experts are encouraging people to get backlinks from popular sites like Wikipedia in order to raise there PR and search listing. People now spamming Wikipedia to get quality backlinks for none. If Wikipedia bans such shameful tactics, I will be happy to follow wikipedia.

  • Pingback: The Ultimate Guide on How to Get Your Website Listed in Wikipedia()

  • Ankur

    I agree with all my heart.

    Another blog – recommended all links to be given non-follow, for a period of 6 weeks or so, and if no one edits it ,then the link has a reason to be there.

    Yet, apparently wiki does not want to listen.

    Fight the power! :)

  • http://code.mincus.com mincus

    One of the things that people miss with Wikipedia adding nofollow to its links, is that downstream Wiki sites (wikibooks etc) or sites that use the mediawiki software end up with nofollow as well.

    So you have people that may not even know that their external links are nofollow on their sites.

    Imagine if by default people who used WordPress and other blogging software had _all_ external links in their posts marked nofollow. These changes add up and the web loses the ability to count votes on links to determine what content is actually worthwhile.

  • http://www.timlinden.com/blog/ Tim Linden

    Good point mincus. And then the big G would have to come up with a new plan on ranking the web =P

  • http://insuranceready.googlepages.com zeza

    Haha, you’re pretty good at baiting me, that’s for sure. ;)

    But, I think that both blog comments and Wikipedia’s external links both fit quite well in the “anywhere that users can add links by themselves” that Google suggests for using nofollow tags.

  • http://www.simfone.co.uk Adrian

    Well, SEOs have always had the talent to spam bad sites to the top of the search rankings, it will be interesting to see if they have the talent to spam.


    [link removed]

  • Pingback: David Gerard » Blog Archive » World Intellectual Property Day: April 26, 2007.()

  • Veinor

    mincus: Except the software is configurable, and if you’re setting up something as huge as MediaWiki without going through configuration, you don’t really have a business using it in the first place.

  • Veinor

    Forgot to say: This has been the default for a while, actually. Nothing has changed downstream. Wikipedia’s settings don’t affect the other MediaWikis.

  • http://pageman.multiply.com The Pageman

    some thoughts:

    1. it’s not easy to put an article up in Wikipedia let alone put links inside it. really. try it. there’s an army of deletionists inside wikipedia that will mark your article with speedy deletion if it doesn’t subscribe to wikipedia standareds

    2. it’s hard enough to get second sources to be referenced by a tertiary source like like Wikipedia. I’m thinking this might discourage people to put up meaningful material there and also develope the stubs.

    3. is there an alternative to wikipedia then? a wiki without the nofollow? so this is like a nofollow virus that’s slowly infecting the WWW as more downstream wikis assimilate the nofollow tags

    4. I’m wondering how big G will now rank relevance … (thinking out loud) :P

  • http://www.petertdavis.net Peter Davis

    I doubt it discourages many people from contributing to Wikipedia. It’s a rather myopic point of view. Only SEOs even think in those terms. And, most SEOs who were submitting their links to Wikipedia are still out there submitting massive numbers of links.

  • http://knaddison.com/drupal/just-say-no-follow-wikipedia-links greggles

    Yeah, the people against this are so myopic. They just want to have an internet full of reliable organic links that can be used by search engines to find high quality content. I mean, it’s so myopic to hope that the internet could be full of relations between sites rather than a series of separate silos.

    Peter, this isn’t a binary thing either. So, thinking about it that way only serves to keep your thoughts on the subject at a base level. Wikipedia has lots of options (as has been discussed earlier in the article and comments) that wouldn’t require nofollow to stop the spam.

  • http://www.seo4fun.com./blog/ Halfdeck

    “They just want to have an internet full of reliable organic links that can be used by search engines to find high quality content.”

    What are you drinking? SEOS don’t want “reliable organic links.” They want traffic and ranking. From Wikipedia’s POV, SEOs can go take a hike. They want people contributing to make a better Wikipedia, not whiners that are out to exploit Wikipedia.

  • http://www.marketingpilgrim.com Andy Beal

    Halfdeck – what about the web sites that Wikipedia editors cite (steal) information from in order to make up their precious information? Don’t they deserve to get something out of this? It’s not like Wikipedia has these experts that just “know” all this information. They’re getting it from other sites and probably not citing a good majority of them as it is.

  • http://www.petertdavis.net Peter Davis

    Well, if Wikipedia is stealing content, they deserve a DMCA notice. A citation is a citation whether it’s nofollowed or not.

    Don’t I deserve lots of links from your blog for all the witty comments I leave for you? :D

  • http://www.seo4fun.com./blog/ Halfdeck

    Andy, I never said all outbound Wikipedia links should be nofollowed. I’m gunning for some transparancy here. Arguments get so damn convoluted when self-preservation is at stake (anyone watch Heidi try to talk her way out of getting fired from The Apprentice last Sunday?).

  • http://www.mikroproje.com green

    Wiki is not stealing content i think, people steal from somewhere and inserts there, that why it has been popular.

  • kik

    what are news about the « other way that nofollow » on wikipedia (which were supposed to be a temporary fix), by now?

  • Pingback: Utah Internet Marketing :: Social Media Optimization :: eBay Selling Tip » Blog Archive » Why I Support the Wikipedia nofollow()

  • http://foro.recuperarelpelo.com/viewtopic.php?t=698 Actimel Francisco

    Andy, I think the idea is great and I will “FOLLOW” it :)

    I understand the new era of NOFOLLOW because of the SPAM, this and that. Now, WIKIPEDIA? You are right when you say that they have they popularity because of “everybody”. So, I have just two links to them, and I’ll add the NOFOLLOW right now! :D

  • http://www.johninjapan.com HDR

    Spam has been around since Al Gore invented the internets.

  • http://www.svajdlenka.com/ Svajdlenka

    For mi is Wikipedia still good source for useful info. I don’t have links on my pages on Wikipedia, but I think that external links on Wiki are not good only for SEO purposes, but also to bring traffic on these websites. When I am looking for some word on Wiki I usually follow some from external links.

  • http://www.alwaysfinance.co.uk actimel

    what are news about the « other way that nofollow » on wikipedia (which were supposed to be a temporary fix), by now?

    ———————————————
    http://www.alwaysfinance.co.uk

  • Pingback: Bujes blog » Blog Archive » Kampanija proti Wikipediji()

  • Pingback: There’s a Blog in My Soup! » Blog Archive » Campaign to Reduce Wikipedia’s PageRank to ZeroCampaign to Reduce Wikipedia’s PageRank to Zero , Voodoochilli, your company, your words()

  • Pingback: The Truth About No-Follow — Webmaster Dome v1.8()

  • http://www.iroke.org/ Iroke

    Hehehe,
    Nice idea. In any case from my own experience
    the no follow tag is rather futile.
    Both google and yahoo still consider no follow tags as valued links. It’s a fact.

  • http://www.talentterminal.com Sucharith

    Would be a nice try… thou I really don’t think this could ever happen :)

  • Pingback: Real Estate SEO Blog » Blog Archive » Power of internal linking()

  • http://www.fire-proxy.com/ proxy site

    …For mi is Wikipedia still good source for useful info. I don’t have links on my pages on Wikipedia, but I think that external links on Wiki are not good only for SEO purposes, but also to bring traffic on these websites. When I am looking for some word on Wiki I usually follow some from external links….

  • http://www.anonymous-web-proxy.net anonymous proxy

    Wikipedia only took this action because of invasive link dropping, which is abusive. I fully applaud the decision and hope they never turn off the NoFollows.

  • mikinhiou

    yes !!! wikipedia is bad !!!
    it is bernard savonnet, my favourite teacher of iut informatique dijon, who says that !!!

  • http://www.comparetheloan.co.uk Compare Homeowner Loans UK

    For mi is Wikipedia still good source for useful info.

  • Pingback: Thoughts on Wikipedia and Bad Link Building Practices - Cape Cod SEO()

  • http://blog.treasurelondon.com/ Ronald

    Awesome! I just found out about this campaign – I hate nofollow and I can’t understand why Wikipedia would adopt it.

    I actually despise the concept of nofollow so much that I won’t be following this campaign (although I’m already less inclined to link to Wikipedia). Nofollow is doing nothing to remove spam and everything to destroy internet community spirit and harm google rankings of new and updated media. The fact that we’re starting to see it in places it wasn’t originally intended for, like the critically-edited Wikipedia, should ultimately make the tag worthless (I hope) and lead to it being dropped by Google.

    good luck with your campaign
    All the best,
    Ronald

  • http://boostmark.net/ Miguel

    Well, if Wikipedia is stealing content, they deserve a DMCA notice. A citation is a citation whether it’s nofollowed or not.

  • http://internetmarketing.cfswords.com D Cooper

    I am also a person that doesn’t support Wiki anymore. I am just a little guy that created a sword and weapon site here, Swords, and I took the time to add history files, research on each piece, etc. A Wiki editor actually allowed linking to some of my inner pages as resource material for content included on there site and I had no issues with that, until this rule was adopted. So someone out in the world can find my work useful, publish it somewhere, and I don’t get credit anymore? I think not. I support the no follow to them.

  • John

    Wikipedia is probably the best thing to happen to the internet, besides http, widespread broadband, and all that technical stuff. It bothers me how inadequately cited all of the information is, but still, It just kills me to hear people dash on it.

  • researcher

    Wikipedia behave like a robbers. They take content everywhere and do not even want the original source gave some rank.

    Visits of my site went down by 40% after nofollow was applied. And I never spammed, never added a link to my site.

    Now Wikipedia is at the same level of evil, if not even higher, as those stupid spammers. I am sure there could be much better ways to decide whether the links are relevant or not.

    I hate Wikipedia since day I lost and they gain on my sites. And I am sure there must be a large number of similarly affected people, especially those that have websites with a lot of reliable and unique facts as I did.

    You should be ashamed and get back to hell where you belong.

  • Pingback: Critique de Wikipedia | Encyclopédie()

  • http://www.semgorilla.com Search Engine Marketing Book

    I have always had a problem with Wikipedia, I mean people work hard to come up with original content and they never want to give credit where credit is due.. Anyway. Thanks for the post

  • http://myspace.com/wana_89 wana

    I really don’t agree with this. Wikipedia is great for all the ignorant people! Let them be enlightened. ;)

  • http://www.fullinternetmarketingservices.com Ejudicator

    It may be great for all the ignorant people, but not great for the authors of unique content. Think about it, most of the time the re-print permission includes credit to the author of the original piece. If someone uses my work to create a book, I expect something in return, not just a line that says…”Uhm, oh yeah, this guy wrote some stuff that I used, but don’t go look him up.”

  • http://www.mydatafarming.com John Illnes

    The official claim is that links with the rel=nofollow attribute do not influence the search engine rankings of the target page. In addition to Google, Yahoo and MSN also support the rel=nofollow attribute.

    i think it helps indexing

  • http://www.your21st.co.uk Your 21st

    I am in! All the websites I have ever come across in Wikipedia external links are useful, and spam is always removed pretty quickly.

    Why should the useful links not be given any credit on the website that was made global by all the websites wikipedia links to!

  • http://www.geldonlinelenen.nl Geld Lenen

    I think you miserably failed trying! :P

    Geld Lenen’s last blog post..Reclames over geld lenen

  • http://www.absolveonline.com web design

    As of today their PR is 8

  • http://www.basketwallpapers.com Basketball Wallpapers

    correction for comment above mine, PR of wikipedia.org is 9, not 8 :) just checked out…

    btw i like the idea but i think it’s impossible to be done :D too many webmasters, too many minds, impossible to get all of them united… plus there are surfers who find wiki useful and they don’t care about follow or nofollow tags :)

  • http://www.factoryfast.com.au/T-Shirts/c133/index.html tshirts

    I have noticed, though, that I do get far less results on a Google search pointing to Wikipedia these days than I used to get over a year ago. It seems as if, perhaps, this thing of yours worked or the NOFOLLOW hurt them more than they would care to admit. I guess they had to get rid of spammers, but there might have just been a need for better moderators instead of using NOFOLLOW. It’s just not clear, yet, what NOFOLLOW does just yet…

  • http://freeonlinebookstore.org Niraj

    Its really sad. But I think they did this to stop spamming

  • http://www.marocainannonce.com maroc annonces

    this article is nofollow ;)

  • http://medical.freeonlinebookstore.org vikas

    Really ?? I didnt thougth so

  • http://freeipodsetc.co.uk iPod Fan

    To begin with I thought this was a good move by Wikipedia as it will reduce the number of spammers dramatically. Then I looked at the wider picture and it seems that this was just the easiest and cheapest solution to a problem which should be solved in another way.

    Wikipedia should continue to reward the related sites containing useful information or information which was used to make the Wikipedia article in the first place. I believe they should have moderators to weed out the spam links and not punish the innocent.

    My 2 cents.
    John

  • http://computer.freeonlinebookstore.org/ShowBook.php?subcategoryid=5 vikas

    oh…… wikipedia should allow this …

  • http://vertrouwdgeldlenen.nl/doorlopend-krediet.htm doorlopend krediet

    Somehow I got this feeling wikipedia doesn’t care. They are so powerful now. I mean, how could you persuade other people to join you? I would take ages.

  • http://www.twentyzeros.com randy

    Wikipedia is a phenomenal idea and event but anymore is for few viewers or participants. Most don’t take and or have time to break out all the wikipedia language to get their content matters started and even for me it is user unfriendly. But for the point, simply stated, I forsee a mast heavy ship toppling under their own weight. They are at some point sooner than later going to run amuck also of disinformation and carry the stigma as deceiver, with information next unconnected to real issues and at last floundering on with appearance of a dead or fatally wounded dragon! View my wikipedia misnomer page – google up -wikipedia misnomer.

  • http://netsight.pbwiki.com netsight

    My personal belief is to drop the page rank system altogether. Look what it’s doing to the internet. it creates spammers, it creates an absence of other sites with more relevant content to the viewer and it’s exploited for the purpose to sell high PR sites (something that PR wasn’t created to do!) Is there any alternative?

  • http://www.nugeldlenen.be/ Klein bedrag lenen

    This is fun to some extent but still, what’s the point? It obviously will not work, as you mention yourself. If you don’t mind, I’ll spend my scarce time reading your blog :-)

  • http://www.cashlenen.nl Cash lenen

    It’s about time Google stopped with the whole PR system anyway since it seems to be deprecated more and more.

  • http://www.mawmong.com/ แมวมอง

    That's an interesting proposition… It's useful. Thanks.

  • http://www.vitsanu-p.com/ ถ่ายภาพแต่งงาน

    great idea!highly useful.Thanks for the post.

  • http://ellaguru.net/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=5354&sid=c525a9afc8f53767260ba0481ee6423c ellaguru.net

    Hi there, i read your blog from time to time and i own a similar one and i was just

    wondering if you get a lot of spam comments? If so how do you stop it, any plugin
    or anything you can suggest? I get so much lately it’s driving me

    insane so any assistance is very much appreciated.

  • NOFOLLOW

    Get over it. It’s 2013 and this web still is mark the licks to wikipedia which mark NOFOLLOW.