Note on adding your own site's link to Wikipedia

Check out my article on what Wikipedia is going to do with link-spam.

 

Thanks, that's interesting.

I added a few links to my sites a while back, some are still there, others have been removed. What I found amazing is that they removed some of them saying they are commercial, and then left others which linked to a standard crap design blogspot blog, which on its turn linked to a commercial website.

So are they saying I can link like that, adding a second tier? Who are they fooling? So as a company I can start a free blog, put the content there (so it looks less commercial but at the same time far less credible too) and then link from there to my site so I still get the traffic. It's a load of bollocks IMO. Many quality research (white papers, R&D) come form commercial companies. Google, IBM etc. all share a wealth of info. Can they not be linked to?!

Almost all the external links in the end are commercial. Even the non-commercial ones run ads. Even the non-commercial ones have hidden agendas, owned by commercial entitites datamining their way to riches etc. It's all a silly practise.

I linked to uniquely written articles that were topical (not even pushing towards a certain product) and of benefit to those reading that wikipedia entry. So what they can buy stuff on my site.

Anyway, Google knows anyone can add links so they probably already take that into account when valuating them.

PS thanks for the blog design offer though it's already been assigned

 

Glad you liked it

Ok, np

 

No more spamming for me then.

Sometimes the editors are complete pricks about it. The other day I added some really useful links to a site thats the most trusted in its niche and has no adverts on it at all. The site is an authority since 1996 and they removed the links and accused me of promoting commercial stuff. Not one of the links was on a commercial page or to a commercial page.

 

Agreed, after i wrote this article, they removed the link i spoke about in the article, even though it's the best site there is on the subject...

 

Yeah, they treat it like their little baby, being emotionally attached to what they created rather than realizing their efforts (whilst appreciated) have long been donated to the public domain.

I had hoped Wikipedia would result in an open minded effort, similar to how the blogosphere has been fighting against conventional media. But no, they insist on conventional science which means a lot of useful and true info can not be added in to the equation for readers to evaluate.

But going back to the link 'spamming' - such a cat and mouse game, adding them and then some being removed, would bore any SEO to death pretty soon so it's not a sustainable tactic anyway. It gets you indexed quickly if anything.

I wonder if we can add them to the 'spamming' entry, as an example?

 

Hehe, great idea

 

On another note, www.work.com is open to spamming and they love it. Its like squidoo for businesss (to quote Aaron).

 

Here's another spam-gem I'll share: topix[dot]net - unmoderated commenting - no need to sign up

 

Probably one and half months back I created a page for my site. I used wikipedia first time on that time. Actually I felt wikipedia is a good option to search for relevant information, so I must create wiki definition for my site. So that whenever any interested visitor will search for the reliability of my site they can get the information regarding my site and then I wrote an article describing the main motto of my site and submitted it to wikipedia. My intension was not at all to spam.

But editors deleted my site article page, declaring that I am trying to promote my site wrongly.

I told them I am new to wikipedia. I was expecting some help from experts but instead of giving time and guiding me they deleted my site article.

They said it goes against wikipedia norm, they provided me the link too, but from the given page the concept was not that clear to me.

Don't know where I was wrong.

 

I put a link to my own site within a Wiki article about 2 months ago and it's still there, I can only assume that they thought the article was worthwhile.

 

The guidelines i quote in my blog post explicitly state that you can't enter url's or create articles about yourself or your own sites.

 

Whether this is a good thing or not depends on how the search engines use this information. Someone who spams Wiki should have their links from Wiki discounted, but if they also get booted from the SE's then there's far too much scope for sabotaging other people's sites. So I don't think this initiative will make much difference, unless the SE's are desperate enough to throw out a lot of babies with their bathwater.

 

OR if the Wikipedia guys come up with something that works

 

For what it's worth, here's my recent dialogue with a Wiki editor:

Seems they don't like either Ad Sense or Blogs. Initially, made me feel like I've been doing something "dirty" being an "adsense blogger". Oh well, time to focus elsewhere...

 

I had a site that had several pages listed as references for content that people had written in Wikipedia. An editor came through and removed the reference link to my site, but not the content that was created as the reference. It isn't that big of deal for me, but I wonder how much content in Wikipedia is losing links to the original source because editors remove them.

I'm kind of surprised they don't use the no_follow tag, because that is exactly the type of situation it was created for--to keep people for getting search engine benefit from spamming sites.

 

do you mean by just putting my website in wikipedia becomes a spam?

 

Yes, by their guidelines, you become a spammer the second you add a site you own.

 

If you link relevant topics to wikipedia, then it's ok. If you link spam, it's fair that they remove your link. Hence, just make 1+1: build original quality content for your site and link it to wikipedia this is a real white hat gem

 

That's not true, since that was exactly what i did and i got called a spammer for it.