Wikipedia is always in the middle of some brouhaha or another. This time blogger gums are a-flappin' over the online encyclopedia's decision to tag all links on its site "nofollow," which will render those links invisible to Google and its search-engine brethren.
Whether this is a good thing, a bad thing, or just an unavoidable thing depends on who's doing the talking.
Wikipedia says it's unavoidable because of the mischief caused on its site by spammers and search-engine optimization schemers.
Nick Carr is among those saying that decision is a bad thing:
Wikipedia is adopting the policy to reduce spammers' incentives to add spam links to the encyclopedia. I wonder, though, if it could also have the effect of reinforcing Wikipedia's hegemony over search results. The sources cited in Wikipedia, many of which are original sources, will no longer get credit for their appearance there, which should cause at least a little downward pressure in their own search rankings (hence providing a little more upward pressure, relatively speaking, for Wikipedia's articles). Although the no-follow move is certainly understandable from a spam-fighting perspective, it turns Wikipedia into something of a black hole on the Net. It sucks up vast quantities of link energy but never releases any.
So, too, does search engine expert Philipp Lenssen, who wishes Wikipedia had found another way:
What happens as a consequence, in my opinion, is that Wikipedia gets valuable backlinks from all over the web, in huge quantity, and of huge importance – normal links, not "nofollow" links; this is what makes Wikipedia rank so well – but as of now, they're not giving any of this back. The problem of Wikipedia link spam is real, but the solution to this spam problem may introduce an even bigger problem: Wikipedia has become a website that takes from the communities but doesn't give back, skewing web etiquette as well as tools that work on this etiquette (like search engines, which analyze the web's link structure). That's why I find Wikipedia's move very disappointing.
And among those voting for "good thing" is Rand Fishkin of SEOmoz:
It may seem odd coming from someone who practices link building and whose clients require the service, but I'm glad to see that Wikipedia has shifted back to nofollow on all outbound links. ... As usual, the "SEO" brush is applied as a moniker to mean "those who spam for links." I don't expect this language or reputation to change, but it's always sad to see. What will be interesting to watch is how it really affects Wikipedia's spam problem. From my perspective, there may be slightly less of an incentive for spammers to hit Wikipedia pages in the short term, but no less value to serious marketers seeking to boost traffic and authority by creating relevant Wikipedia links. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that Wikipedia doesn't revert back and switch back to live links in the future. Since anyone can add them, Wikipedia is practically the definition of where nofollow should be instituted.
My seat-of-the-pants view of the issue finds Wikipedia's case the most compelling here. After all, its primary mission is to provide a reliably usable online encyclopedia, not to ensure an enduring balance of benefits between link givers and receivers. If someone has a better idea for solving Wikipedia's spam problem, then by all means let's hear it.
Welcome regulars and passersby. Here are a few more recent Buzzblog items. And, if you'd like to receive Buzzblog via e-mail newsletter, here's where to sign up.
I'm stuck in an effin' elevator.
Reason No. 2 to resist filing a complaint with the FCC.
2009's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries.
Melissa virus turning 10 ... (age of the stripper remains unknown).
Tweeting with "Star Trek" actor sparks kitchen fire?
40% of geeks surveyed admit to working ... how many hours?
A few clean words from the creator of Cursebird.
Want to close your LendingTree account? Sorry, no can do.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Wikkipedia No Follow Links.
Perhaps it would be good to use a combination of the current solution and a review system. Submitted links could be set as no follow until they are reviewed.
Tagged - SEO at TagNe.ws
This is news for all the black-hat seos (and some gray hats too).
I'm personally glad I won't have to keep spamming them . Cheers!
http://www.tagne.ws/SEO/Wikipedia-is-now-tagging-external-links-NOFOLLOW/
New No Follow Rules
It is always sad to see all punished for a few, OK several peoples mistakes.
It would be nice to see them implement a review system to prevent the useless spam links and still enable the use of good solid useful links.
The first solution is of course the easiest to implement and manage, I guess time will tell.
A wise decision
I represent a company that posts links to our free and paid products on wikipedia.org on relevant pages. The games we make have been specifically designed to help teach new and inexperiencedcard and board game players how to play (as well as provide some great customization options for more experienced players). Our games are feature rich and therefore we identified the Wikipedia audience as a good target market.
We have gotten a reasonable response for our games from the Wikipedia customers. Since I am not paying wikipedia for these links I see no reason for them to give me any extra SEO boost. If they initiate a payment system my company would be willing to pay as long as the pay system was similar to google adwords.
Additionally, I looked on their site for their posting rules. I found rules, but I never saw in there that relevant advertisements were not allowed. Secondly, Some (but not all) of the links have been deleted several times and I have received no notification as to why this has happened. I am left guessing as to if it was due to an official rule or some other contributer.
Valid products are also important information that users would like to have. Rather than rely on our own SEO strategy we are willing to search through wikipedia for relevant articles (10 in all) and post links to our Free series of games (dqfree.com) and our for-sale series of games (dqsoft.com)
We attempt to Post in relevant categories with relevant descriptions with-in the external links category so that we do not cause confusion.
Perhaps if Wikipedia does not want spammers they should be more descriptive for what counts as a spammer so that we can learn if our strategies are inapropriate for the website.
Um...
try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SPAM
Spammer
You are a spammer. Plain and simple. You are the scum of the internet. Deal with it.
Good View into the spammer's mind
Although some of the follow up comments were ungramatical and crude, they pointed to the underlying problem.
Marketing folks see the world different than the rest of us see it. This is why spammers send to folks who opt out of lists. They think that the folks who opt out are really interested in the product, and it is in their best interest to see the message.
You can see by the comments in "Wise Decision" that marketing folks don't understand spam and don't believe that they are spammers, even when it is crystal clear to others.
The best solution to this, is a wikiipedia upgrade where spammers can buy links on a side bar (Just like Google) where the links are tied to the article's content. Yes, it is not a commercial-free solution, but it gives a place for the spammers to live, that keeps them out of the way, but makes their content available to those who might be interested.
And it may help Wiki's income problem...
Or leave new links as nofollow for 14 days
If the link is still there (i.e. not reverted as spam etc) then the no-follow can be removed once its probationary period is up.
Probably has 95% of the benifit of the above without adding review load.
Google should then dereference Wikipedia
Google should remove wikipedia from all search results.
Don't change the concept
If you are going to change the concept of wikipedia on which principle it has earned such popularity & reputation, I don't think people will find it that much helpful. Instead, wikipedia should make compulsary the registering process for external link submission. I guess wikipedia's moderators want to release their responsibility for editing that might be the reason they are taking such step.