|Does Wikipedia actively try to compete for Google rankings|
I've been working on ranking a site for a keyword that a page on Wikipedia ranks number 1 for. they've been number one for as long as I have been checking (few years) and their "links to the page" count was sitting at about 175 for that entire time. as we acquired links we moved up in the results, all the way to #2. as our link count started to get close to Wikipedia's link count, their link count started to grow, for the first time since I have been paying attention, from 175 page links to over 300 in the matter of a week or so, just as we started to get close to them in link count, after a steady link count for 2 years that I know of.
Could it be that they are actively trying to compete for top spots? I can't imagine that being the case, what say you?
Of course they are and they have enough link power to direct it wherever they please. That being said I wouldn't worry about it too much and I wouldn't waste time counting links, a good site about any topic has a fair chance of beating wikipedia because they can't spread the link power everywhere. "We want to be a site about everything and be #1 for everything!" Denied.
I'm afraid that I am one of those responsible for a lot of the "wikipedia action".
Having grown weary of searching through tons of cr@p results, I now use a new technique, for MOST of my searches. My queries now are like this - "subject name wiki", without the quotation marks. Wiki is not perfect, but it is ALMOST ALWAYS the best page for me, no matter what the subject. It works great. If you want to accuse me of being a wiki hoar (frost), so be it. Its quick, its complete, and usually has far more info than I need - which is a good thing.
So, I guess there are fans, and "not-so-much" fans.
hi Sally, i'm not a wiki hater, in fact our site is referenced on this particular Wikipedia page so I'm not saying that they are not a good source for information ;)
I'm just questioning the sudden jump in their inbound links as we got close to their position, it doesn't seem very "organic".
Unfortuantely some people are trying to use Wikipedia to promote their own political or social views. The articles are supposed to have an unbiased neutral point of view, but that isn't always the case. This ruins it for me.
I don't know if Wiki is actively SEO'ing their content. If so, I would be curious who is undertaking it with the tens of thousands of items that would rank. I think a lot of people refer to it as reference through links, so maybe it is a natural ranking, unless Google is weighing it heavily.
|The articles are supposed to have an unbiased neutral point of view |
And if you care, you can get involved to make that happen - it is a "wiki" after all, and they do have editorial standards you can use to enforce neutrality.
I'm sure wikipedia THINKS about rankings and on the mass scale, they take the steps they practically can to rank. But the idea that they would monitor their #1 positions and fend off competitors? Nah, that does not compute.
Someone else might have a motive to do that for a specific Wikipedia page - for whatever sort of "side" reason.
|Someone else might have a motive to do that for a specific Wikipedia page - for whatever sort of "side" reason. |
that would be my thought.
|And if you care, you can get involved to make that happen - it is a "wiki" after all, and they do have editorial standards you can use to enforce neutrality. |
That's how it's supposed to work, Tedster. But some editors are determined that only their views will be presented, and they have the time to constantly "guard their pages", ready to jump in and delete anyone else's changes.
I've been involved with one "wiki-war" for over three years now, so I do know what you're talking about. It ain't easy, but it is possible... if it matters enough to invest the time. It's a case-by-case decision, but the mechanisms are there.
Has anyone here experience with de-optimising by rewriting articles to suggest another topic and/or reduce keyword density? Or by cutting out internal links?
If you do it the right way, the articles should even get more relevant from a humans perspective. Not enhancing the quality of an article seems to be a waste of time because of all the discussions with other editors.
If wikipedia tries to compete for rankings, changes effecting the visibility in serps on a bigger scale should be prohibited by some automated tool. So if you replace some internal links with different, better ones and some keywords with synonyms on a big scale by using some kind of wiki bot, you should be able to find out if they are reacting.
I am sure that someone must have run a test like this because a wiki listing at spot 1 is a common problem even in very competitive markets.