One added by a person with a connection to the website. Because nothing says free publicity like a high ranking page you have no control over that is likely to end up listing every contiversy the company has been involved in. Ever. Experence suggests people are really bad a judgeing the value of their website.
With the trust google gives wikipedia, you certainly don't have to google bomb it, not by a long shot, and not with the dinky phrases you listed anyways. Bombing might not work the same as it did but google hasn't eliminated basic seo tactics all together. Funny how you say "no control". If anyone wants to look at some great spam, I'd recommend taking look around the wiki, try out the wiki search and be sure not to forget to take a great big shovel. While you're at it, if you figure out or keep in mind the google trust wiki relationship, you just might pick up on a few good tricks to add to your arsenal as well. The wiki may have some good content but that's not enough reason why one of the biggest spam producing sites in google should rank for everything. Since when can you do a search on yourself or neighbor and pop up in a 'pedia. You would never find such a result in reputable 'pedia anywhere but low and behold there you are in the wiki. It is insanely hilarious, and just a simple example of the crap that's in it. It's because they have "no control" and the fact that google is super trusting the wiki, that it has become one of the top favorite targets of spammers and become a super spam producer. So the best they can do because they have "no control" over it's own site's links is use no follow on ALL of them? A site that has "no control" over it's own links, that produces so much spam, and uses untrustworthy "no follow" on all it's links are some great characteristics of a site that SHOULD NOT be trusted. YO Google, it's time to knock the trust down a bit don't you think? The wiki is the biggest SPAM ENGINE in Google. Maybe it's not Big G at all, and it happens to be all the wiki's incoming links. In any case, this is more than enough good reason why Webmasters should join together and stop growing the wiki's serps and return the favor by linking back with "no follow" too.
What baloney. It's simple, people just know that the wiki is a great free super spam tool that google loves.
Wikipedia annoys the crap outta me, I don't think it is fair that it basicaly takes over most searches you do in Google, we should protest.
Ok technically they have a low level of control but it is pretty minimal. Fortunately there are a bunch of people who take spamming as a personal insult and spend large amounts of time vaporising it. Part of the problem is the definition of good. Google tries to rank content people want. It appears that there is a large demand for to the point fairly short articles. Britannica has it's mildly notable 19th century UK figures. Wikipedia has the same for the 20th century. However you need to remember Wikipedia combines the traditional generalist encyclopaedia with the more specialist encyclopaedia. A generalist encyclopaedia might have no mention of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etlingera_elatior but a botanical one would (it is also possible that the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana would have that level of coverage) Well it appears to be the standard solution for external links on blogs so yes. No central control Nah blogger and usenet are solidly in the lead for that one. Why? Do they not trust links they themselves added?