| 3:01 pm on Oct 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Just my two cents...
Since the ability to self promote in wikipedia is limited, I would instead concentrate on making your own site the center of information for this topic.
eventually there will be a wikipedia page that covers everything, so hopefully your own site will be so established in this area that when it happens, they will at least mention you as a reference.
| 3:05 pm on Oct 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
First you should try to find a Wikipedia page that already exists (on a related topic). If you can find such a page, then you can try to add some more info to it, plus a link to your site as a reference. That's what I would try to do first.
| 3:50 pm on Oct 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
If you can write an editorially object article for a topic that isn't already covered, I'd say do that. But consider it a defensive action or a land claim, more than a proactive marketing move. Use a very gentle touch with any promotional messaging so you don't get seriously challenged (which is no fun at all).
Just the fact of having a Wikipedia page published can be useful and positive in ways that are not always obvious early on.
| 4:06 pm on Oct 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
You guys are the best!
However, this is what is stopping me:
1. I am afraid that the wikipedia article will steal valuable real estate from the first page---there are ZERO serious entries anywhere regarding this widget. of the 1000 keyword/synonyms---there are no entries---this is wide open. However, my concern is that I write a nice entry, and it takes a top spot, making it harder for my business website to rank.
Now, if enough traffic came through the resources part, I can justify it, but I read one article discussing that the referring traffic for such entries is very little. But that was one article. Having trouble nailing this down.
| 4:44 pm on Oct 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I don't think wikipedia's referral traffic will be great...
but my sincere suggestion would be to keep wikipedia clean...if you really feel like contributing to wiki without expecting anything in return, then go and add the page...otherwise forget it...
and yes, wikipedia can easily take the top spot than any other site...
| 5:03 pm on Oct 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Thanks much---this was my thought.
I would certainly keep something like wiki clean---however, I am not too generous with sharing the first page for altrustic reasons. Talk about getting no love from one's competitors---they would curse me! I would curse me if there was nothing to be gained and valuable real estate to be lost! There would be no love at all!
Thanks for everything guys!
| 5:03 pm on Oct 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
If you have a solidly established Wikipedia page, it's can be a good presence for boosting online reputation.
It can also help Google identify your company or product name as an "entity" (brand) - and that complexity has been growing in importance in recent months (especially the Mayday update [webmasterworld.com], but also during last year's "Vince" update [webmasterworld.com].
| 5:50 pm on Oct 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
For this widget---it's more of a commodity. Like how a manufacturer supplies bolt widget or corn syrup. Now my other product, definitely---I haven't even began SEO on that other site. It's not like Coca-Cola---it's not a branded widget. it's supply of a component of a long logistics chain.
| 8:26 pm on Oct 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Churchill said "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it". And he did, the definitive set of volumes about World War II. So comprehensive was it that no others have approached it as the defining book about the war. Is it a true account? Who knows, but there is nothing else out there that compares to it.
So, write that Wikipedia article in a manner that reflects kindly on your site, write it in detail and write it well. Cite your own website as the reference. If you don't do it then sure as eggs someone else will. And sure as eggs it will not feature your website as well as you would.
| 9:10 pm on Oct 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Boy, you guys drive a hard bargain--let me think about this.
Thanks for everything---and thanks for being so nice!
| 9:07 am on Oct 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
@nomis: I've tried to write similarly on Wikipedia as you state in your second para. As a new poster on W, it is almost impossible for @mary to get any external hyperlink or reference to a commercial entity (unless an extremely influential entity such as Coke or iPod) to stick in her article. Much easier if you've written dozens of articles and are known to the editors in a field of knowledge. Source: my own difficult experience tangling with eds, even after doing years of editing.
But hey, why not experiment from a one-time use IP, using a different username, about a different subject, using your intended post as a template, changing the subject area and names? Internet anonymity can be a beautiful thing.
| 12:34 pm on Oct 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
You know, I have read this before---that Wikipedia is nasty political. I honestly don't have time, literally no time, to shmooze. I have plenty of niche authority places that will take my articles and blog posts and give me link juice (again, almost nobody writes on my niche, so of course there would be no wikipedia-only in very distant related ball parks).
Leaf green, you are baaaaaaaaaad! That is a wonderful idea.
I am not sure I have time to deal with editorial jerks, as I am a scientist and I have already wasted valuable life dealing with sociopaths in this field who do nothing for me.
| 6:31 pm on Oct 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I have read this before---that Wikipedia is nasty political |
This comes with the territory. It's a wiki that is open to anyone's edits, so in some areas political battles will naturally erupt. A platform that you control such as Blogger, Wordpress, Tumblr - will have less hassle, but also less public reach.
I've been involved with one such Wikipedia article page for over four years. The "negotiations" have evolved to a kind of compromise article that I'm at least not upset about. The higher editorial levels in Wikipedia were very good about marking the page "under dispute" for a period, and in general smoothing the process.
My advice for anyone getting involved in such a situation is to learn Wikipedia's editorial standards by reading the Help pages and Tutorials - and adhere to those guidelines scrupulously. Then you can require all others who edit the page to do the same.
| 7:54 pm on Oct 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Maybe high interest terms on Wikipedia are subject to lots of political and whatever in-fighting. Yes, I've heard that. But I have three articles on Wikipedia which have remained for a couple years at least and they all cite my websites.
Sticky me if you want an example. They are not minor subjects but they are subjects which require research to stand out. So it can be done.
Possibly it's best to lower your sites and not enter a citation on a hotly competitive subject but one, nonetheless which is linked to your site's subject?
Without going into specifics, I would suggest that trying to get a Wikipedia citation on the XBOX 360 page is a waste of time. We all have XBOX 360s and the competition is vast for that type of term. But an attempt to get a citation in Wikipedia on the De rallier gears for bikes (swear it's nothing to with my sites1) might stand a much better chance. Has anyone ever tried to disentangle the chain from the gear mechanism of a modern multi-gear bike lately? A nightmare.
| 9:35 pm on Oct 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Wow---what awesome responses. Here is the thing Nomis, did it pay off for you? There have been times in the past and will be times in the future that I have donated services for the overall betterment of the system.
However, I honestly don't have the time---literally I am nailed to the wall 7 days a week---to write well researched and thought out entries for which there is no immediate value in terms of PR, traffic, or SEO juice.
For instance, I wish I could post more and participate here, or any high quality board, but I am nailed. So I really need to use my current energies for things that work. I honestly don't have time to schmooze and get to know the editors---not that I don't want to---I just don't want to embark on a strategy that I cannot give full attention to.