digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Campaign to Reduce Wikipedia’s PageRank to Zero

marketingpilgrim.com — NOFOLLOW me to Wikipedia...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • whipnet, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3Yeah, I am sick of seeing them always in the top 5 for ANYTHING I search for with their bunk information.. and their recent 'nofollow' decision? Geez.

    I removed their links months ago.

    *
    • devnill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19"Yeah, I am sick of seeing them always in the top 5 for ANYTHING I search for with their bunk information.. "

      I couldn't disagree more. Wikipedia is an invaluable resource for nearly everything under the sun. It makes searching the web easier too because articles contain pertinent external links to what I'm searching for.

      As for bunk, independent research has shown that wikipedia is as accurate if not more than sources without peer review
    • drewhenson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6devnill is absolutely right. and I'm sure everyone in school can definitely agree that wikipedia has the saved their ass at one time or another.
  • TheKMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Should I be surprised this is coming from an internet marketing blog?
  • ST47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was just linked to the article from one of the wikipedia IRC channels (the one related to removing spam, incidentally) and, well, this guy is an idiot. Not only is the spam on websites against most people's moral code, it is also against policy, and probably got him banned - remember MyWikiBiz? Mr. Wales' and Brion's actions, which I support, were completely justified and were the best way to handle this. We use a bot to watch the addition of links, just because there are so many coming in, and there are 5 people who devote most of their time to it. This is probably worse than the masses of kids logging in behind their teacher's backs to insert penises into articles, and yet these are ADULTS doing this!
  • raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8So because you can no longer spam them and benefit? We will plot against them?

    Grow up.

    Try becoming as reputable as Wikipedia rather than take shortcuts and spam.
  • aurigus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Yeah... I'm really sick of those thorough and accurate articles getting the top google spots when I'm in a pinch for information...
  • Speed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ya, you are so right, I can't stand all the accurate information. When I study and do research I want to plow through pages of crap before I find a good site.

    buried as lame.
  • bufferout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Check out the spammers going nuts about it over at this thread:
    http://www.wickedfire.com/industry-news/7373-wikipedia-external-links-now-nofollow.html?highlight=wikipedia

    Makes you think the "nofollow" tactic is not so bad anymore.
    • Yoweigh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1EDIT: Ignore me, for I am dumb. Ignore the guy above me even more.
  • greggles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Here's your Drupal filter to add nofollow to all wikipedia links: http://knaddison.com/drupal/just-say-no-follow-wikipedia-links
  • drugged, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Who follows the f'ing external links anyway? 99% of the time I find what I'm looking for on Wikipedia. No need to go anywhere.
    • hansamurai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wikipedia is not a primary source, the links on the bottom are. That's why you go there when you're writing a paper or looking for more information.
    • acebrickman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1remember, anyone can change any entry at any time... Always check references for clarity when submitting a report buddy..
  • izzybomb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't understand this stuff.

    Web advertising confuses me...SEOs?
  • nalrem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wikipedia is made by people. If they consider a link as relevant, it's important wikipedia give PR.
    Wikipedia, by not doing this, is sure that other website could not become more important thant it.
    Wikipedia would never forget that only links made it popular : no visitors, no contributor, no good indexing.

    There will always be spammers on wikipedia, people follows links, so you always have interest to have a link.
  • seanieb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Bury this story! its from the spammers.
  • halfknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Doing research includes checking sources and therefore also the links going away from an article at Wikipedia. If an author thinks it's necessary to add a link than it's part of his contribution and Wikipedia should not have the right to kind of censor his work.
    And if this is one fist step of Wikipedia to start charging fees to post links, than this is even more ugly because they would be abusing the work of all those contributors who made Wikipedia possible in the first place - or does anybody think Wikipedia considers sharing the profits?
    WE are Wikipedia and this attempt to fight back is worth digging !

    PS: Spam is part of the Internet like rain is part of the weather. You just have to accept it. Use an umbrella!
  • sorvoja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

    What goes around comes around
  • Beatherb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It isn't all about spam. Read this article and see why Wikipedia going nofollow is wrong... http://andybeard.eu/2007/01/exactly-why-nofollow-at-wikipedia-is-bad.html
  • JoyceBabu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If wikipedia thinks adding nofollow to its links is ok, then why can't we do that?
  • tomc4tuk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0NoFollow is a useful link attribute if you can't be bothered to moderate user generated content. However, sites & blogs that can't be bothered to moderate user generated content ought to be dropped from the search engines. Blogger adding this attribute tells me they think I won't moderate comments, or care where I link out to. I'm capable of doing this, and everyone else ought to be.
  • diego018, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0well, but imagine, its a hard work, only 88 people agree wit this, and there are a lot of webmasters!!! but why do you link to wikipedia? cant you write by your own a description of something? i will not place no follow links since I'm not linking to wikipedia in any pages..
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.