Comments on: Wikipedia nofollows is best thing since sliced bread http://www.petertdavis.com/233-wikipedia-nofollows-is-best-thing-since-sliced-bread Just another WordPress weblog Sun, 23 May 2010 15:57:37 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Peter T Davis http://www.petertdavis.com/233-wikipedia-nofollows-is-best-thing-since-sliced-bread/comment-page-1#comment-402 Peter T Davis Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:50:10 +0000 http://www.petertdavis.com/?p=233#comment-402 Andy Beard, you make some good points. With the porn and defacing, I've noticed those get cleaned up much more efficiently than does the link spam. And, I think what you're getting at is that Wikipedia shows up in the search above better resources, but I think that's a Google problem not a Wikipedia problem. And, Andy Beal, you're welcoem to annoy me here whenever you'd like. I can take as well as give. ;) Andy Beard, you make some good points. With the porn and defacing, I’ve noticed those get cleaned up much more efficiently than does the link spam. And, I think what you’re getting at is that Wikipedia shows up in the search above better resources, but I think that’s a Google problem not a Wikipedia problem.

And, Andy Beal, you’re welcoem to annoy me here whenever you’d like. I can take as well as give. ;)

]]> By: Andy Beal http://www.petertdavis.com/233-wikipedia-nofollows-is-best-thing-since-sliced-bread/comment-page-1#comment-401 Andy Beal Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:07:29 +0000 http://www.petertdavis.com/?p=233#comment-401 I thought I'd come here and annoy you. ;-) I thought I’d come here and annoy you. ;-)

]]> By: Andy Beard http://www.petertdavis.com/233-wikipedia-nofollows-is-best-thing-since-sliced-bread/comment-page-1#comment-400 Andy Beard Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:05:50 +0000 http://www.petertdavis.com/?p=233#comment-400 It is a 2 way street, after all the Wikipedia article might be defaced with porn spam or malware links. Seriously, my main bone of contention is the ethical - Wikipedia contains no original research and thus should be obliged to link through with a followable link to source documents, otherwise it messes up search algorithms that rely on followable links to avoid a "chicken and the egg" scenario with duplicate content. The SEO content that was pointed to was a very poor example to use for taking the action. If anyone from Wikipedia read the rules for the competition, they would clearly have seen that the rules forbid any naughty behaviour. It is a 2 way street, after all the Wikipedia article might be defaced with porn spam or malware links.

Seriously, my main bone of contention is the ethical – Wikipedia contains no original research and thus should be obliged to link through with a followable link to source documents, otherwise it messes up search algorithms that rely on followable links to avoid a “chicken and the egg” scenario with duplicate content.

The SEO content that was pointed to was a very poor example to use for taking the action. If anyone from Wikipedia read the rules for the competition, they would clearly have seen that the rules forbid any naughty behaviour.

]]>