Wikipedia Links - Anyone noticed random removals?

[kkibak]

For some of my more legitimate sites, I'm able to get links to stick in Wikipedia.

By "stick" I mean remain there for over a month or so. This is enough time for all the sites that feed off of wikipedia (e.g. answers.com, etc.) to pick up my links, which is quite nice.

The problem I'm encountering is that every few months or so, links will mysteriously dissapear. These are quality links that (apparently) passed initial inspection.

Anyone know what's going on and why these would be getting deleted? Do you think it's a competitor editing the external links?

[exam]

Or an editor that thinks the links aren't relevant. Remember Wikipedia want to be an encyclopedia and not a web directory. They want the content themselves, whenever possible, and not links to the content.

[dct]

I've had some of my "legitimate" ones removed, I know check every month or so and add again if necessary.

[kkibak]

Or an editor that thinks the links aren't relevant. Remember Wikipedia want to be an encyclopedia and not a web directory. They want the content themselves, whenever possible, and not links to the content.

Why would the editor do this months down the road, though? That is, what made them change their mind?

Also, they obviously do want external links (e.g. not just an encyclopedia) or else they wouldn't have an "External Links" section...

[mdvaldosta]

The wikipedia is freely edited by anyone, an "editor" type could have removed it for quality or cleanup reasons, or a competitor. In all honesty, unless your contributing content to the article and your using your site as a reference - then your link has no place in the wiki. I've got a few links in there to some of my sites, but I've contributed content taken from the pages (with original content) I linked to. They've never been removed.

[ROAR]

My telecom site was their for about 2 months until recently---will deal again soon.

[kkibak]

Maybe I was unclear--as I said in the first post these are "legitimate sites"--By this I meant to imply they are providing useful content.

[exam]

Why would the editor do this months down the road, though? That is, what made them change their mind?

Also, they obviously do want external links (e.g. not just an encyclopedia) or else they wouldn't have an "External Links" section...
Actually if you read their "guidelines" or whatever, they want to keep the "external links" section down as small as possible, only linking to extremely relevant and pertinent content that can't be included into wikipedias content. Anybody can edit the pages and even if a bad link has been there for years, if someone comes accross it they will remove it.

[kkibak]

Actually if you read their "guidelines" or whatever, they want to keep the "external links" section down as small as possible, only linking to extremely relevant and pertinent content that can't be included into wikipedias content. Anybody can edit the pages and even if a bad link has been there for years, if someone comes accross it they will remove it.

This just makes me think mine is even more relevant... a forum for discussion of the exact topic at hand is something that can't be offered on the wiki site, yet is useful to those interested in the subject. *sigh* ill stop complaining now, since that was not the intent of the post. the goal of the post was to find out why they are approved and then later disapproved. i guess it basically comes down to two possibilities: a competitor or random person edits the external links section, or an editor reviews and "cleans" the entire section at some random point down the road and decides to remove your link.

[mdvaldosta]

Maybe I was unclear--as I said in the first post these are "legitimate sites"--By this I meant to imply they are providing useful content.

That's just it.... the Wikipedia is NOT a link directory, just because your link is relevant doesn't mean it belongs there. External links should refer to sources of information used for the article.

[kkibak]

External links should refer to sources of information used for the article.

I'm sorry but you are posting BLATANTLY incorrect information. Sources are ONE type of external link.

Check out Wikipedia's own list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#What_should_be_linked_to) of the six types of links that are appropriate. Of particular interest:


5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.

[DirtyDog]

Maybe I was unclear--as I said in the first post these are "legitimate sites"--By this I meant to imply they are providing useful content.

Does that mean your site is an authority on a given subject? You are an EXPERT in the subject matter or you have hired experts to write the content for you? If not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

[kkibak]

Does that mean your site is an authority on a given subject? You are an EXPERT in the subject matter or you have hired experts to write the content for you? If not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

ughh it would be really nice if you would read all the posts before passing judgement... just 3 posts above yours i made clear it was:

a forum for discussion of the exact topic at hand

[carowan]

I thought Wikipedia links were REL NO FOLLOW links, and a link from there would hold no weight?

[DirtyDog]

ughh it would be really nice if you would read all the posts before passing judgement... just 3 posts above yours i made clear it was:

I read them and my post is still accurate. I don't believe forums are appropriate sites to be linked in Wikipedia articles. But of course, what I think doesn't matter in the end, but I think you will find that most editors will feel the same way.

[kkibak]

I thought Wikipedia links were REL NO FOLLOW links, and a link from there would hold no weight?

Doesn't look that way to me:


<li><a href="URL Removed" class='external text' title="URL Removed">Anchor Removed</a></li>


Also, they are showing up in my backlinks on msn/yahoo in addition to the dozens of sites that feed off their info.

[kkibak]

I read them and my post is still accurate. I don't believe forums are appropriate sites to be linked in Wikipedia articles. But of course, what I think doesn't matter in the end, but I think you will find that most editors will feel the same way.

agree to disagree ;) i think that after reading an encyclopedia type article on a given subject, it could be helpful to see a link to a forum for discussion of that topic.

[tzimisce]

Here is from Wikipedia itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

Links to normally avoid:
10. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.

[kkibak]

Here is from Wikipedia itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

Links to normally avoid:
10. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.

thanks, helpful info.

this is a little subjective imho:

website is of particularly high standard