This nothing new but I thought I'd share this tidbit with you all: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/ptech/stories/110906dnbustechbits.2cb432d.html
I have a nonprofit site that has a link from a popular page (PR 7) on Wikipedia. Is this a good link, or so the SE's devalue since the possibility of spam exists?
As well they should, Wikipedia is a great resource website that desrves to be ranked high as the information on is is generally quite up to date, acurate and extensive. I compete with Wikipedia and most of the time it out ranks me so I know they cost me traffic, but nevertheless Wikipedia deserves it.
Wikipedia ranks so well in Google because of all of the incoming links that it gets so any link that you can get from Wikipedia is highly valued by G
Wikipedia is a good source. Most of the links off of it are quality. It should be ranked with some value.
links from wikipedia are quite valuable, assuming you have a link that won't be deleted two days later.
It's kinda scary, for several reasons. First, many Wikipedia articles seem to be taken from my site, some wtih and some without attribution; either way I don't get the ad revenue from them! Second, I can see wikipedia degenerating the way dmoz did when it got popular. The spammers moved in and the attitude got nasty. Third, as noted, the spammers will start hitting wikipedia in force any day now, and I don't think it can withstand the determined onslaught. Wikipedia is generally an excellent resource, I agree with that, and I can't really fault Google for doing what people want. There are mistakes but that's true everywhere on the web; likewise they tend to give a surface treatment but in many cases they're pretty darned good and give further links for more info. There's the usual bias and fighting over controversial topics with the biggest mouths/most dedicated people winning, but that's almost unavoidable.
are you serious?? So google also "owned" wikipedia? wew... what a giant company... I love reading wikipedia though, and I think most of internet users also love reading the site... so google made no mistakes
I don't think Google favors it simply because it's Wikipedia... I think Google favors it because it has tons of useful/unique content with tons and tons of good links to it (most deep links).
Some have already started "spamming" Wikipedia and Wikipedia has already started trying to combat this.
Why not? Wiki is noncommercial and very useful, so many people gives links to these these pages so this is nothing surprising... link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization - for example... it's self positioned.
wikipedia is a very good resource and it deserves to be at the top of google for most searchs. I always search in google "wikipedia <word>" because i know what i want, and i know that the information on there will be what i want. Rob
I think it's because wikipedia has a lot of links into her site, linking other sections. for example if we write Michael Jordan in a NBA section, Michael Jordan has a link from NBA section. And Michael Jordan section to NBA. And for example Jordan play in chicago bulls, the same, etc. I think with this wikipedia is in the first places of the ranks always, and too because is a great site and it has a lot of information in all the sections. I don't know if people can understand me, I speak bad english hehe
Surely a better experiment would have been to gather 1,000 things people actually search for an see how wikipedia ranks for them. Rather than the other way round. ...that said Wikipedia does turn up in a lot of my searches.