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.

google should penalize wikipedia

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

  1. geni

    geni Peon

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #61
    Given the cost of and content journals however it isn't the same market so no conflict.

    You can have your scientific journals and Wikipedia.

    Who do you think should be held responsible if a copyvio appears on these forums?
     
    geni, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  2. AZhitman

    AZhitman Active Member

    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #62
    "We"?

    Oh, it all makes sense now. :rolleyes

    All this talk of "anti-copyvio" tools makes me laugh. If that were the case, it would have flagged the content we submitted as already being present on another site - Mine.

    Whatever. Save your defense of the "bait-and-switch" Wiki for the uninitiated. And you can tell Editor "Nposs" to check his/her messages while you're at it.

    To quote AGS, "Cobblers". ;)
     
    AZhitman, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  3. Deano

    Deano Sail away with me.

    Messages:
    890
    Likes Received:
    41
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #63
    I don't think that wikipedia should be banned at all, its a very useful resource, but......

    Google seems to have turned into a wikipedia search engine, nearly every single word term you search for Wikipedia is in the top one or two. This does not seem right to me. Maybe they should omit them from their results but have an encyclopedia link at the top of the results, this could link off to say Wikipedia and the less spammed Encyclopedia Brittanica.
    A bit like what ASK does...
    Animal search on ask
     
    Deano, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  4. nathan76

    nathan76 Peon

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #64
    Just a hint: there was a video of some model posted on YouTube over and over again, despite judge's order to remove it. The girl sued and YouTube tried to argue that it is not responsible, since it had no control over users posting the offending material. Yet, the court found YouTube responsible. Good precedent for Wikipedia to think about.
     
    nathan76, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  5. BuenosAires

    BuenosAires Peon

    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #65
    Indeed... maybe Google should replace their I'm feeling lucky button with this :)
     
    BuenosAires, Feb 13, 2007 IP
    Deano likes this.
  6. nathan76

    nathan76 Peon

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #66
    You mean most people don't know how copyright works? If it is true, it is hardly an excuse for such a high-profile site as Wikipedia to display even slightest arrogance about this issue.
     
    nathan76, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  7. nathan76

    nathan76 Peon

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #67
    I don't think Wikipedia should be banned either. However I do think, Wikipedia should respect and value publishers its editors rely upon, instead of labeling everybody "vanity linkers."
     
    nathan76, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  8. geni

    geni Peon

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #68
    Probably would these days. I said tools were improving. But depending in what search engines have indexed the site and how the entry is submitted it may not be picked up. In this case it would appear the text was not a copyvio.

    Wikipedia offered nothing. You thought you could see a way to benefit from it but Wikipedia played no part in that.

    They do.
     
    geni, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  9. geni

    geni Peon

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #69
    [[DNA]] has 119 citations and a further reading section. I think that makes Wikipedia values fairly clear.
     
    geni, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  10. nathan76

    nathan76 Peon

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #70
    Like I said, I do respect what Wikipedia has done with popularizing science, history etc, even with all its shortcomings. However my logic is if there is even slight and unintended possibility of abusing copyright of smaller publications, Wikipedia should go extra mile to keep its sources happy. Obviously, adding "no follow" tags does not help that.
     
    nathan76, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  11. mkmnynow

    mkmnynow Active Member

    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    #71
    pr or no pr, you can still get some decent traffic if your link stays on a wikipedia page

    mk
     
    mkmnynow, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  12. nathan76

    nathan76 Peon

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #72

    This is true, however one can imagine, (even though, I personally have no proof it is actually happening) a marginally profitable web site losing its PR value, as a result of "no follow" from Wikipedia and, in turn losing its advertising revenues, which can make quality reporting and research impossible.
     
    nathan76, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  13. fi5hbone

    fi5hbone Peon

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #73
    Credit is still being given to the authors. Like I said, having a nofollow tag does not mean Wikipedia claims credit for the articles and the author does not get any credit. Having the nofollow tag is just to ensure that the quality of articles to prevent a portion of submissions (meaning those from webmasters) to be spammy and done only to get a link in return.

    True, you might be innocent and writing good articles and just want an SEO boost for it. But think of how many people are there like you. To protect themselves from spammy webmasters, they have to implement a site-wide rule. The non webmaster contributors are not complaining, and this leaves only genuine webmasters who would like to see the content on the internet grow richly to continue to submit articles.

    Spammy webmasters will simply stop contributing their good or not so good articles.
     
    fi5hbone, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  14. AZhitman

    AZhitman Active Member

    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #74
    Again, spare me. Our traffic is pretty impressive, and our PR is just fine.

    We've been supportive of Wiki's nofollow implementation, so please don't lump me in with the "wannabes" who see Wiki as a shortcut to traffic - Our content stands as a testament to that.

    Interestingly, the Editor in question responded to me today, after nearly 3 weeks. If a "thank you" is in order, Thank you.
     
    AZhitman, Feb 13, 2007 IP
  15. torunforever

    torunforever Peon

    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    36
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #75
    What's happening with wikipedia is the same thing that's happened with dmoz.

    Both started off as a good idea, spammers came in an ruined things, then spammers look back at the mess they've made and are the first to say "this place sucks." Nice job spammers, you've ruined another good idea.
     
    torunforever, Feb 14, 2007 IP
  16. fi5hbone

    fi5hbone Peon

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #76
    Exactly. It was a good idea and this latest initiative by Wikipedia will hopefully get rid of the spammers.

    By the way, is DMOZ still screwed up?
     
    fi5hbone, Feb 14, 2007 IP
  17. nathan76

    nathan76 Peon

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #77
    I don't think "no follow" solves spam problem; as Geni mentioned above, it wasn't even a goal. My guess is, Wikipedia needs to hire indepedent human experts in various fields, as Brittanica does it, who would peer-review entries and manually ban spammers, and self-promoters. I undrestand, they do it already at some level.
     
    nathan76, Feb 14, 2007 IP
  18. The Webmaster

    The Webmaster IdeasOfOne

    Messages:
    9,518
    Likes Received:
    717
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #78
    No they didnt..

    Its Us, The Webmaster who tried to take advantage of Wiki's open environment to abuse it and stuff it with spam.
    I have links to my sites in Wikipedia, and the amount of traffic it sends to my sites, is great. I couldnt be more happy...
     
    The Webmaster, Feb 14, 2007 IP
  19. geni

    geni Peon

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #79
    There are differences. DMOZ only has links. Wikipedia has far more. In theory Wikipedia could kill all external links and make reference links text only and continue to function although obviously this would not be an ideal solution.
     
    geni, Feb 14, 2007 IP
  20. AZhitman

    AZhitman Active Member

    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #80
    If that's the case, it's being applied inconsistently and prejudicially:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...ment_of_External_Links_.28in_this_instance.29

    See topic #23.

    Nathan nailed it: Labeling everybody "vanity linkers" is a short-sighted, knee-jerk reaction.

    I stated it OVER and OVER: Keep your damn links. Keep your damn nofollow tags. Just allow the authors to cite their source.
     
    AZhitman, Feb 15, 2007 IP