Page 2 - Will Wikipedia go the Way of Dmoz?

If all you are doing to contribute to the Wikipedia project is add links to your site (regardless of how worthy you think it is), then you are spamming.

Truth be known, most Wiki editors, like in the old days of DMOZ, are on a power trip. I bet almost all of the newer Wiki editors are digruntled past or current DMOZ editors looking for a new base of power in which they may satisfy their penis envy urges.

The above is a joke even though for some it is true. You DMOZ editors know who you are.

Again I will assert you are part of the problem of the wiki community is people who assume.

If all i do is contribute by adding links to places I've been then it's contributing. Because there was connection it's now deemed spam. Fine, but don't assume I own. Furthermore, way back when (and looks like you'll go and check for me) I recall doing some additions, yet having them removed by equally vindictive users because 'bare bones info' is worse than nothing at all.

So back to my original though. Will the human element in Wiki destroy the so called 'neutral information source'? Well the academy won't accept Wiki, and I don't see it getting more efficient as it gets bigger.....so time will tell I suppose. Nice exercise though.

You are just complaining about Wikipedia as you can't use it for your own SEO purposes. Wikipedia (and DMOZ) do not exist for that purpose. ...and never have.

I do not follow your logic. You consider a DMOZ or Wikipedia editor to be vindictive if they do not meet your SEO expectations. As neither sites are there for that purpose, I just do not see what you are complaining about.

IMHO, DMOZ, or any other directory since the introduction of Google, has not had a reason for existing except as a source of SEO backlinks. DMOZ editors hate the fact that they are a sophisticated link farm and fight their slowly sinking into nothingness.

DMOZ is different. It has content that is edited by folks that have little to no deep knowledge of most of the subject matter covered. They are kind of like school crossing guards... Follow the rules or we will tell the principal. No real contribution to the content... just junior cops. Or am I missing something on the true value of a Wiki editor? Again, it goes back to penis envy or the quest for some kind of pseudo power.

It keeps people honest!



That's a subjective vantagepoint... as opposed to an objective review.



Here's a thought... in your retort to keep the links [get them back] is it possible that you were a tad overzealous in your approach which attracted an equal and opposite reaction... and if the shoe was on the other foot and it was your resource that an overzealous person demanded their link re-included... what would you do...?

"Cave in"... right?

Here's what might have happened.... you toss links into 12 articles at wiki all within a tight theme. The same wiki editor watches all 12 of those articles - the articles that have been edited get flagged so he has no trouble seeing where edits have occurred.

He sees your first link and if he likes your site he lets the link stand... then he sees changes on 11 more articles and your link is in every one of them... by about the fourth article he is saying WTF? This #@%& spammer is not contributing he is just stuffing the place with his links.

Bam, he deletes every reference for your domain.... and maybe every one submitted from your IP.

If that story fits your situation the problem is..... Ya didn't stay under the radar.

Sure, objectivity. However, wiki claims to be neutral, find unbiased 'reviews', in reality nobody is truly unbiased. I think I would know more about the value of economics related articles than dudes watching IPs to remove links..... but hey, just a matter of opinion. And I didn't mind dialoguing the way I did cause I had nothing to lose.

Still want to elevate the purpose of the post, keep your own content for non-wiki-sake.

well...



I edit at DMOZ... and if you submit a submarine manufacturing domain, a reseller for ROV or AUV domain, a touring sub domain, or a culture pearl manufacture or a wholesale distributor for pearl jewelry... I'll review and list if acceptable... as such your bias against me without reviewing my work speaks volumes for you own biases at wiki...

And I'm sure there are many, many people in the world "like you" ... but to say "in reality nobody is truly unbiased;" without reviewing any efforts other than those immediately associated with you... shows you don't want any truth... you only wish everyone to be bias "in your favor".



You mean to say all the "economics related articles" at wiki are yours?