1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.
  2. Better Analytics for WordPress Get It Free

google should penalize wikipedia

Discussion in 'Google' started by silent10, Feb 11, 2007.

  1. fi5hbone

    fi5hbone Peon

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #41
    Exactly, there are some who contribute to Wikipedia who are students who do it for the sake of knowledge. My country's newspaper did an article on some of them once and they're only 17 years old who do it because they believe in Wikipedia's cause.

    There are also some students on the tertiary level who contribute to Wikipedia because it is an excellent resource that is affordable. Much of the books that the University uses are too expensive to buy and research becomes tedious when you have to visit the library if you live too far away. Wikipedia thus becomes a great help.

    There is a life outside webmastering I guess. Much of the world are not webmasters and I think Wikipedia did a great job by tightening up on spammy webmasters. I think getting traffic from them is a great exchange, never mind the SEO.
     
    fi5hbone, Feb 12, 2007 IP
  2. geni

    geni Peon

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #42

    You released them under the GFDL so you have no real basis to stop Wikipedia (and the 1000 odd mirrors) from using them.

    And expecting something in return. Charity doesn't work like that.

    Now that would be against google's guidelines but I doubt they care.

    You appear to think of links as votes for a site. Wikipedia has other objectives.
     
    geni, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  3. TheMags

    TheMags Peon

    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #43
    Are you sure about that? I would think it would be up to every webmaster to decide that. The only mentioning of "wrongful" use of the nofollow tag I have heard from google is not using it when selling paid text ads (according to Matt Cutts). But I could be wrong of course
     
    TheMags, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  4. geni

    geni Peon

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #44
    Guidelines basicaly say you are meant to use it for user submitted content but I doubt they care if you use it elsewhere.
     
    geni, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  5. nathan76

    nathan76 Peon

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #45
    It is exactly opposite. I've already showed you examples, how Wikipedia exploits smaller web sites, violates copyright laws in process and publishes innacurate information. And the only "excuse" I've heard so far is "we don't know about it." I do not see how it can be fixed with the current model. I think, the only reason this site is still online is because the Internet is still unregulated wild west.
     
    nathan76, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  6. nathan76

    nathan76 Peon

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #46
    I feel sorry for those students, who find research in the library "tedious" and use Wikipedia instead. By its own admission, Wikipedia has no credibility as a research tool and should never be used as primary or only source on any subject. So far Wikipedia is a huge exercise in mediocrity and its content is vulnerable for every kind of political and corporate abuse.
     
    nathan76, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  7. nathan76

    nathan76 Peon

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #47
    Maybe you can give some supporting argument to why you think this idea is "crap." If Wikipedia attempts to sabotage performance of search engines, which it apparently does, search engines can probably respond with "ignore no follow tag when entering Wikipedia" command to their spiders.
     
    nathan76, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  8. poksa

    poksa Banned

    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #48
    Wikipedia is giving Information for free and its a good resource. I think Google not banned wiki for "NO FOLLOW tag" its because they Tested that many of user abusing Wikipedia like Spamers...:)
     
    poksa, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  9. AZhitman

    AZhitman Active Member

    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #49
    Links aren't, in essence, "votes" for a site? C'mon, geni - you're smarter than that.
     
    AZhitman, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  10. nathan76

    nathan76 Peon

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #50
    This is great, as long as they give away their own information, not the materials, which news media and historians spent years and thousands of dollars to collect.

    If they are abused by spammers, they have to go after spammers, not after sources, who feed them.
     
    nathan76, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  11. geni

    geni Peon

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #51
    Links are a navigation element in a document to another section of the same document, another document, or a specified section of another document, that automatically brings the referred information to the user when the navigation element is selected by the user.

    That is how Wikipedia views them and uses them. That Google treats them as votes is literally Google’s business not Wikipedia’s.
     
    geni, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  12. geni

    geni Peon

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #52
    You can't copyright information thus the phrase "own information" makes no sense.


    Spammers in the classic sense are a non issue. Vanity linkers and the like are the problem.
     
    geni, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  13. fi5hbone

    fi5hbone Peon

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #53
    Wikipedia does not replace the library as a research tool. It aids in the research. It helps you narrow down the choices of books to buy or materials to photocopy and prevents you from spending time in the library chasing down a wrong trail.

    Yes it does not have credibility and is vulnerable. As with other academic works, even with history.

    "History is written by the winners."

    I am not saying the Wikipedia should be proclaimed as the Gospel truth. All I'm saying that the idea of having a passionate community building knowledge on the Internet that can be subjected to discussion is an excellent idea and should not be abused by capitalistic webmasters. And there exists such a community, albeit a small one. Hence the nofollow tag is a good step forward for Wikipedia.
     
    fi5hbone, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  14. exponent

    exponent Peon

    Messages:
    1,243
    Likes Received:
    60
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #54
    Wikipedia wasnt created to be your own personal profit-engine. It is a free encyclopedia for all. I've contributed to nearly every article reguarding horse racing in some form or another. I never did it in hopes of making money off of it, I did it because Wikipedia is a FREE web encyclopedia. I dont always agree with the way things are going on the project but I appreciate it for what it is. Wikipedia has provided me with useful information hundreds if not thousands of times.

    To suggest that a project is "lame" and you hope it "withers and dies" because its not letting you link-bomb it is rediculous. It makes you look like a 3 year old, crying over a lost toy. As for an explanation... why should Wikipedia have to explain why they have removed your links? Should DP bend and comform to you as well? Would you like it to wither and die too? You have a very skewed view of business and how Wikipedia works. I wish you all the success in the world because with an attitude like that, you're going to need it.
     
    exponent, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  15. AZhitman

    AZhitman Active Member

    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #55
    Apparently you didn't read very well... I don't NEED their links, I do just fine.

    Who said anything about "link-bombing"?

    Thanks for your well-wishes, but we're doing quite well despite my "skewed views" and "attitude".

    Go back and read what I initially wrote.
     
    AZhitman, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  16. ErectADirectory

    ErectADirectory Guest

    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    65
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #56
    ErectADirectory, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  17. nathan76

    nathan76 Peon

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #57
    What makes no sense is burying this issue in endless arguments about terminology, we all know what copyrighted content is. I showed you, plain and simple, how copyrighted content is being stolen by Wikipedia. This is a real problem for Wikipedia, not vanity linkers.
     
    nathan76, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  18. AZhitman

    AZhitman Active Member

    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #58
    ^ Correct. It's very much a "bait and switch".
     
    AZhitman, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  19. nathan76

    nathan76 Peon

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #59
    I don't think it is a relevant comparison. Wikipedia's credibility is on orders of magnitude lower than any academic work. It is much harder to falsify traditional historic or scientific research then an average Wikipedia entry.



    The same way, Wikipedia should not steal intellectual property from authors and then shift responsibility for these acts to faceless contributors.
     
    nathan76, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  20. geni

    geni Peon

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #60
    That puts you in a minority on the net.


    Wikipedia has increasing advance anti copyvio tools in place to find copyvios as well as a significant amount of human recourses to tract them down. Compared to any other "web 2.0" project we are pretty clean. We would have more but people but they are busy zapping vanity links.
     
    geni, Feb 13, 2007 IP