Will Wikipedia go the Way of Dmoz?

I've been targeted by two overzealous and 'powerful' users at Wiki. They've systematically deleted all links I built up (say about a dozen) to an economics web site (and yes it's in my sig). The resources helped me when I was doing my degree so I know they'll help other folks, great content that adds to the Wiki article.

So they've all been taken out, in 20 minutes. Weird, I complain or rather talk.... turns out ANY affiliation, even a member of a forum, constitutes conflict of interest and the resource is removed. Lame.

Will Wiki end up like Dmoz?

Yes:

Human editors are overzealous, prone to error, and of course, people are social beings, so if you only interact with other humans through your wiki edits and involvement you'll want to increase your 'wiki stature'. It's a power thing, you can earn 'class' on wiki with contributions.

As a result, as in my case, great resources are pulled out and in fact degrades the 'encyclopedia'.

No:

Wiki is not a directory but a resource and contains a wealth of info unrivaled by any other web site. Although human editors are overzealous with nothing better to do the overall content remains powerful because a greater community is in charge.

Google loves Wiki and currently doesn't look like they'll bother taking them out of first results for longtail articles even if a better, yet commercial, resource exists. Why? Apparently wiki is 'unbiased and neutral'.

Ha.

So no, it won't go to Dmoz, but as it grows, expect many more folks to drop out contributing because jim from houston wants to feel love when he gets home from his boring job.

What can you do re: SEO. No benefit SEO wise to a wiki link. YOu might get great traffic (I'm assuming the econ web site does). However, DO NOT, add to WIKI for items that don't exist. Why, WIki gets the credit, wiki takes the traffic, wiki will ban your user if you try to external link to your related content. NEVER EVER contribute to wikipedia.

Rather, build up your own site, post your own content (for your niche) and watch how you're number one and a wiki page doesn't exist. There is no benefit for having a wiki contribution but all the benefits for maintaining your own article of unique info.

The site in your signature does not come close to being of the quality of being worthy of a Wikipedia link, let alone come close to meeting the wikipedia guidelines for external links. The editors did the right think in deleting your attempts at spamming them.

cbp... Quite a flame... For shame... Totally not necessary.


Actually Wiki and DMOZ are totally different. DMOZ was/is a magnet to gather listings/outgoing links... It is a directory. A good one but just a directory. Google is not impressed with the content of a directory.

Whereas Wiki is a magnet for one-way incoming links to an unbelievable amount of content. Totally different... Google loves content. The only way you will see Wiki go down in the Google SERPs is if Google decides to castrate them.

Those spamming wikipedia to get links are creating way to much work for editors in deleting them, its taking them away from doing real work at developing wikipedia.

Understood... IMO, SEO Chat is not a Wiki editors site.

Ya but I agree with him.

I guess the point is "if an editorial link is removed by an editorial manager that's doing their editorial job on an editorial website... why is that a problem?"

I can surely see why one would get their nose out of joint for advertising links... e.g. for paid inclusion but since wiki doesn't have an advertising policy... what's the real problem?

Possibly an over zealous website promoter?

I am not arguing anything pro or con with the editing of Wiki. I don't think any crap content or links should be submitted or published anywhere on the net... not just in Wiki or DMOZ.

IMO, I just don't think it is necessary to personally flame a poster just because he/she has tried to take advantage of possible loophole in a system; Whether it be Wiki, DMOZ, or any other system. Personalized flames aren't necessary. Argue the merits or the facts of what is posted... not jump out from the shadows and personally knife the poster.

An unsatisfactory review/comment of a website is now considered "a flame"... man things have changed in 2008.

Why do things always get personal with me? I'll take out the link then if it's so offensive

Re: the 'flame'. I haven't reverted back the changes because I obviously have 'promoted' the web site in the past and therefore it does not fall under Wiki guidelines. Too bad, why? Because the content was useful to me back when I was doing my Econ degree, so I throw up 12 links to articles that added value. Mathematically derivations, graphical representations. Yet because I added a couple of finance articles that triggered a filter, the past 2 years of work lost.... Do i fight it? No, why would I, it's w aste of time and I can only assume only a small loss of traffic.

Point being, vast majority of Wiki articles are put up by folks who are part of the 'wiki community'. It gives people purpose to be a part of such an endeavour. Great example of how to capitalize on the 'need to belong' in internet users, especially when you get into giving 'powers' to users. The only problem with wiki, as was with dmoz, is the assume great contributors can be indifferent, neutral, unbiased, when in fact that's impossible.

The community ideal has generated tons of free content. Of course, they aren't monetizing as they could,but nonehtless they got the free content and away they go. Why would you post something to them for free for nothing? For community of course

Who had a problem with the link?



I've never submitted anything to Wiki BUT have lots of links from them... and if I lose them it doesn't matter because I didn't waste time in getting them... that said: "what is the flame here"?



Here's the rub... I want a link it your domains and if you don't allow that... are you over zealous?



Of course... but the same can be said for "why would you make up a free website for the world to see absolutely free"?

For the good of the world - right?

I think the facts are, someone was spamming Wikipedia to get links that got deleted and came here to complain about it. Surely the fact that spamming with a site they think was worthy and Wiki editors do not, makes a discussion of if that site is worthy or not is appropriate. Thats not a flame - they opened the gate with the complaint.

I just like to stick to factual analysis without personal attacks. You can do as you like, as I am sure you will, as will I.

As DMOZ states:

"Using DMOZ as a seo tool is a thing of 2003"

And also, you are really right. DMOz has a lot of corruptness in it.

As I asked you in another thread, where does DMOZ say that? Are you making that up?Can you provide one piece of credible evidence for that or are you just making that up too by repeating the SEO forums urban myth?

YOu know, I like you (in a non-epsicopalian way), why because you're a cynic. The trouble is, I can't tell when



My qualm was that the bash on the links (which were around for over a year but I triggered a filter cause I added 3-4 more in quick succession) was based on content. The content was not unworthy. The fact I promoted them through social bookmarking apparently renders the lasting value of the content useless.

And, it would appear that the web site will be eternally flagged by overzealous wiki users so the prospect of someone else finding the info lasting and adding it is removed.

So yes, shouldn't have wasted the time in the first place.