I agree with you that there may be rubbish on Wikipedia and that lots more could be done to sort it and that Google could rank my pages above Wikipedia in SERPs ;) but .... why not pass PR? That's the bit that doesn't make sense.
I compared with an other folder on this site, about same creation date, but no PR7 links from Wikipedia. Exactly the same, folder index PR3, rest of folder PR2
Thanks for sharing that. It's not conclusive proof, of course, but it's what I'm seeing time and time again, on several different sites.
theoretically SEs may (and should) decide to pass or suppress the link benefits (PageRank - authority - anchor text value - etc..), to pass a percentage of any component
Don't get me wrong, I agree that SEs can do whatever they want with what is essentially their algo. I'm trying to establish whether others have seen this same lack of tPR and if it is the case that PR is blocked I'm hoping to discuss the logic. If Google thinks a particular (Wiki) page should be #1 in the SERPs why would it not (give PR) value to long term links on that page? Particularly those quoted as "References"?
It doesn't surprise me at all - Matt Cutts has hinted that this would happen.
I must have missed that somewhere. You wouldn't have a link, would you, leadergroot? I'd be interested in reading what exactly was said on the Wikipedia link issue.