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.

Wikipedia Links - Anyone noticed random removals?

Discussion in 'Link Development' started by kkibak, Apr 26, 2006.

  1. #1
    For some of my more legitimate sites, I'm able to get links to stick in Wikipedia.

    By "stick" I mean remain there for over a month or so. This is enough time for all the sites that feed off of wikipedia (e.g. answers.com, etc.) to pick up my links, which is quite nice.
    SEMrush
    The problem I'm encountering is that every few months or so, links will mysteriously dissapear. These are quality links that (apparently) passed initial inspection.

    Anyone know what's going on and why these would be getting deleted? Do you think it's a competitor editing the external links?
     
    kkibak, Apr 26, 2006 IP
    SEMrush
  2. exam

    exam Peon

    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    120
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    Or an editor that thinks the links aren't relevant. Remember Wikipedia want to be an encyclopedia and not a web directory. They want the content themselves, whenever possible, and not links to the content.
     
    exam, Apr 26, 2006 IP
  3. dct

    dct Finder of cool gadgets

    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    328
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #3
    I've had some of my "legitimate" ones removed, I know check every month or so and add again if necessary.
     
    dct, Apr 26, 2006 IP
    kkibak likes this.
  4. kkibak

    kkibak Peon

    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    78
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    Why would the editor do this months down the road, though? That is, what made them change their mind?

    Also, they obviously do want external links (e.g. not just an encyclopedia) or else they wouldn't have an "External Links" section...
     
    kkibak, Apr 26, 2006 IP
  5. mdvaldosta

    mdvaldosta Peon

    Messages:
    4,079
    Likes Received:
    362
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    The wikipedia is freely edited by anyone, an "editor" type could have removed it for quality or cleanup reasons, or a competitor. In all honesty, unless your contributing content to the article and your using your site as a reference - then your link has no place in the wiki. I've got a few links in there to some of my sites, but I've contributed content taken from the pages (with original content) I linked to. They've never been removed.
     
    mdvaldosta, Apr 26, 2006 IP
  6. ROAR

    ROAR Well-Known Member Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    1,869
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    #6
    My telecom site was their for about 2 months until recently---will deal again soon.
     
    ROAR, Apr 26, 2006 IP
  7. kkibak

    kkibak Peon

    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    78
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    Maybe I was unclear--as I said in the first post these are "legitimate sites"--By this I meant to imply they are providing useful content.
     
    kkibak, Apr 26, 2006 IP
  8. exam

    exam Peon

    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    120
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    Actually if you read their "guidelines" or whatever, they want to keep the "external links" section down as small as possible, only linking to extremely relevant and pertinent content that can't be included into wikipedias content. Anybody can edit the pages and even if a bad link has been there for years, if someone comes accross it they will remove it.
     
    exam, Apr 26, 2006 IP
  9. kkibak

    kkibak Peon

    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    78
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #9
    This just makes me think mine is even more relevant... a forum for discussion of the exact topic at hand is something that can't be offered on the wiki site, yet is useful to those interested in the subject. *sigh* ill stop complaining now, since that was not the intent of the post. the goal of the post was to find out why they are approved and then later disapproved. i guess it basically comes down to two possibilities: a competitor or random person edits the external links section, or an editor reviews and "cleans" the entire section at some random point down the road and decides to remove your link.
     
    kkibak, Apr 26, 2006 IP
  10. mdvaldosta

    mdvaldosta Peon

    Messages:
    4,079
    Likes Received:
    362
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    That's just it.... the Wikipedia is NOT a link directory, just because your link is relevant doesn't mean it belongs there. External links should refer to sources of information used for the article.
     
    mdvaldosta, Apr 26, 2006 IP
  11. kkibak

    kkibak Peon

    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    78
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #11
    I'm sorry but you are posting BLATANTLY incorrect information. Sources are ONE type of external link.

    Check out Wikipedia's own list of the six types of links that are appropriate. Of particular interest:

     
    kkibak, Apr 26, 2006 IP
  12. DirtyDog

    DirtyDog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    18
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #12
    Does that mean your site is an authority on a given subject? You are an EXPERT in the subject matter or you have hired experts to write the content for you? If not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
     
    DirtyDog, Apr 26, 2006 IP
  13. kkibak

    kkibak Peon

    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    78
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #13
    ughh it would be really nice if you would read all the posts before passing judgement... just 3 posts above yours i made clear it was:

     
    kkibak, Apr 26, 2006 IP
    Jat likes this.
  14. carowan

    carowan Peon

    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    24
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    I thought Wikipedia links were REL NO FOLLOW links, and a link from there would hold no weight?
     
    carowan, Apr 26, 2006 IP
  15. DirtyDog

    DirtyDog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    18
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #15
    I read them and my post is still accurate. I don't believe forums are appropriate sites to be linked in Wikipedia articles. But of course, what I think doesn't matter in the end, but I think you will find that most editors will feel the same way.
     
    DirtyDog, Apr 26, 2006 IP
  16. kkibak

    kkibak Peon

    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    78
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #16
    Doesn't look that way to me:

    Also, they are showing up in my backlinks on msn/yahoo in addition to the dozens of sites that feed off their info.
     
    kkibak, Apr 26, 2006 IP
  17. kkibak

    kkibak Peon

    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    78
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    agree to disagree ;) i think that after reading an encyclopedia type article on a given subject, it could be helpful to see a link to a forum for discussion of that topic.
     
    kkibak, Apr 26, 2006 IP
  18. tzimisce

    tzimisce Guest

    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #18
    Here is from Wikipedia itself:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

    Links to normally avoid:
    10. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.
     
    tzimisce, Apr 26, 2006 IP
    kkibak likes this.
  19. kkibak

    kkibak Peon

    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    78
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #19
    thanks, helpful info.

    this is a little subjective imho:

     
    kkibak, Apr 26, 2006 IP