How many “top 10” Google search results does Wikipedia have?

Google's treatment of Wikipedia has put it in a position to dominate short-tail keywords. But don't just take my word for it: see for yourself.

 

100% fact. Wikipedia's dominance in google is growing like faster. but people are able to overcome it. Won't be a problem in the future

 

I love wikipedia... what do you have against it?

 

There are a few things not to like about Wikipedia but overall it's great. I agree it shouldn't always get such high rankings since most users of Google know Wikipedia and can go there directly so adding them to SERPs does not enhance user experience.

 

I could not have said it better myself. That dang Wikipedia keeps sucking up one of the top 10 spots for too many of the keywords I am going after.

If google keeps this up, we will see one top 10 spot going to Wiki, one going to You tube, one going to myspace, leaving only 7 for the half-hearted SEO effort!

 

I talk about it in depth here but basically Wikipedia is a noble pursuit but does not deserve the title or respect of an Encyclopedia. A lot of the information is just plain wrong and with no system of accountability and high rankings in Google it becomes dangerous. Wikipedia itself admits that it is not an authority and should just be used for an overview or starting point into real research.

I don't have anything against Wikipedia itself, just how it is being used by Google and end-users.

 

thats not even half , i know many more keywords in which wiki appears in top 10 , search gurgaon ( its my city) and wiki will tell you whats it, tough i hate wiki personally

 

Facts:

- Wikipedia contain the most original and useful informations about any subject that u can think of.
- Wikipedia's content is always UPDATED
- Wikipedia is doesnt have any ANNOYING ADS, Popups, popunders, banners..
- Wikipedia is 100% safe and user friendly

Isnt that the PERFECT Website for USERS ? IMHO it deserve its Domination.

 

the people who edit wikipedia suck,

they steal your content, don't link to your site and then when you try and use your own link to add it to your content which they take they remove your link, then you get punished by google for identical or similar content and you drop in serps.

sure wikipedia is great for mum and dad web users but any one who wants to rank high and make some ok revenue form serps wikipedia is EVIL...

 

i agree with the content stealing part, but for the serps and ranking get over it WIKIPEDIA IS ONLY 1 WEBSITE RIGHT ? Ranking 3 or 4, 1 or 2, 11 or 12 for a keyword is "almost" the same thing...

 

Some of the results spots might be filled with images, news, your email and other listings from Google.

It's funny that Google ranks Wiki so high yet some say Wiki is Google's biggest threat. There is a crazy amount of editing going on there (pick a few obscure topics and check the history tab for each, it was probably edited yesterday) and they may have a directory and or search engine before you know it.

 

Things change, google will not hold the top spot forever. I think wikipedia may challange google someday if the users get hip to it. The reality is they will proabably challenge Google enough that Google will just have to buy them out for a few hundred million or more. Me, you, and every developer would love to have a crack at monetizing wikipedia and I'm sure we can inlcude Google on that list!

 

I agree that it is a good thing that Wikipedia is ranked so highly. I was surprised at first though.

 

As a webmaster, I find wikipedia somewhat irritating when im targeting specific keywords. As a web user, I usually find that wikipedia is the last stop I make when it comes to most topics, if they are providing the most comprehensive source of information then they deserve to get the rankings. I think their content is pretty accurate aswell, please provide evidence if you think otherwise.

 

Define "safe". Bogus or stolen or bogus stolen content is not safe. Liable is not safe. No accountability is not safe.

Every time a page is a target of a rewrite or vandalism or a hoax the content is not accurate. I've also seen articles that dispute the claim Nature made that Wikipedia is *about* as accurate as Britannica. Every time politics - internal, party or whatever get's in the picture the article is not accurate.

 

they rank 2nd for "the"

kick ass

 

I think wikipedia is ranked higher, because it really does have to more relevant and in-depth content on various topics...