another blog post of mine. not going to paste the entire text here this time (or in the future), because the DP forums are outranking my own site basically though, it just goes into strategies on how to add your site to wikipedia without attracting to much attention, and how to add them in an appropriate manner that editors won't (or shouldn't) have a problem with.
Very interesting article. I would also add to read the External Links Information from Wikipedia, especially the "How to link" part.
Good article but the main point is Wikipedia is NOT for promoting your website. So one day or another an editor will catch you and then have a close survey about your site.
well, the whole point is, there are acceptable and unacceptable ways to link to your own sites. if you use your sites as sources to make articles more verifiable, not only is it adding value to wikipedia, but you're also getting a link and not doing anything wrong.
Nice blog post digust. I would also add that when linking don't go over board on the anchor text - instant red flag.
Wikipedia editors should take their heads out of their asses. If we add good content, that makes Wikipedia a better resource, and the source of that is our own website, and we link to it as a reference, then it is fine. Nothing wrong with that, and if Wikipedia editors have a problem with it, they are not thinking straight.
Thank you for the article very informative. And thanx for that link Beans,all this info should serve to get me some very good links from wikipedia. Thank You
What one person think is good doesn't mean the same for another. Also, some editor who created page think they are to owner of page and they are the only one who should add stuff on it
I agree with your second point entirely, unfortunately However, I think that although we can say all opinions are subjective, it is pretty obvious from the Wikipedia guideline what sort of content they want, so if you are adding value according to their guidelines, and adding links according to their guidelines as sources, and some of those just happen to be your site, there should be no problem, and if wiki editors have a problem with it, they are being unreasonable.
BING! You hit the nail on the head with the citation. The trick is having the content to back it up and your site looking authoritative. If you have a crap looking site, it's still going to be deleted sooner or later.
dunno if I agree with that bit. a lot of university professors run very informative, useful sites with tons of authoritative information but they don't know a thing about web design you should make your authority come clearly across. authority doesn't neccessarily translate to a slick looking website. definitely worth-while to think about how your site should be structured to make editors more likely to keep your link up, though.
Nice post Disgust! Here's anothe ruseful thread about it http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=157218&highlight=wikipedia They removed my links with the reason "commercial" too. On the linked page was no "buy" form or anything, it went to my article section which actually has quality articles written by professionals in their fields. The link before me was to a blogspot blog which had on its turn links to the commercial entity that was being promoted. So the landing page in itself wasn't commercial but who's fooling who here? It was a crap 1 page blogger blog only designed to funnel traffic through. Mine was a quality ecommerce site with excellent backup info. Other similar links have stayed so in my experience, the editor is the biggest 'liability'. Biggest benefit I found is traffic. Wikipedia gets tons of traffic and many of them click through.
Editors have guidelines Just read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/When_should_I_link_externally Follow this is the best way to get and KEEP external links.
there are guidelines but not all editors follow them, and even among those that do, different editors interpret the guidelines differently. they're not absolute. what one editor thinks is a commercial site may be different from what another thinks is.
When I say crap looking site, I was refering to something that screams spam or link hound. That has nothing really to do with design.
Ah this is great. Thanks! I read your blog and I'll admit...I'm one of those Webmasters who do it completely wrong! Thanks for setting me straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam (control f for "revenue girl") looks like wikipedia noticed the entry. one editor even commented on my blog, but seemed to miss the point entirely.