| 2:48 pm on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Wikipedia is not a directory. You can't expect to promote your site by adding links in articles. It's not the purpose.
| 3:53 pm on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In general wikipedia accepts links only, when they are to pages/sites about the specific topic AND add more value than the encyclopedic content of wikipedia itself.
| 6:44 pm on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Links are also more likely to remain if they are a reference, rather than just a link. That is, if the site is used as a source of information in the Wikipedia article.
I doubt this has anything to do with "admins staking their claims". First of all, while admins have more power than others, ANYBODY can edit a Wikipedia page.
Who removed the link, and was there an entry made on the discussion page explaining why? You can simply put it back. Of course, it would be best if you add to the discussion page, and explain why it belongs there. As the site owner, though, you aren't in a real good position to defend inclusion of the link, due to your obvious self-interest.
While I seldom edit a Wikipedia article, I have also removed obviously-commercial links myself. (Not in the course of promoting a website nor patrolling for competitors, neither of which I do on Wikipedia - but simply while doing research.) Anybody who comes across your link and decides that it's irrelevant spam can and probably will remove it.
Keep in mind what Wikipedia is for. It is not there to promote your products or web site. It is intended to be an authoratative reference work. If your site is a recognized authority on a subject, then there probably should be a link to your site on the subject page.
You should probably leave it to somebody else to make that link.
| 8:07 pm on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Wikipedia is corrupt, IMHO.
That's pretty funny for you to say that since you clearly want the link love.
On the other hand I think this did go on to some degree with ODP in commercial categories and probably will with Wikipedia too. As others have said, it's not just admins that can remove your link with Wikipedia... it could be your competitors. Whether all this is good or bad depends on how high quality your site is.
One way to arguably keep a link in would be to 'donate' some of the content from your site to the Wikipedia article and then reference it. That way if someone wants to remove your link they (morally/legally anyway) have to remove the content and you'll have a leg to stand on in the discussion.
You'll be giving up some content but the link might be worth it.
| 2:03 pm on Dec 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
wiki's full of vandals and commercial interests. There's users there who do nothing other than wander around marking pages for deletion or removing all external links that then pretend they're helping. I've seen users with 100's of instances of doing nothing other than this.
It's frustrating. Conversely, nothing stopping you from reverting the article back to a previous version. Two clicks and done.
I suspect wikipedia over time will start to develop a dmoz like reputation.
| 5:13 pm on Dec 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I suspect wikipedia over time will start to develop a dmoz like reputation. |
Actually, it's getting better all the time. Their push for references in articles has improved quality immensely.
There are a number of (authorized) bots that sweep through Wikipedia periodically performing various types of automated tasks - spelling, grammar, and style corrections, for instance. These work on the obvious cases, flagging questionable ones for human attention.
Then there are legions of individuals who go through looking for specific things that need fixing. These are the unsung heros of Wikipedia - not those (although certainly important as well) who contribute their specialized knowledge to articles, but those who sweep up the horse dung behind the parade.
Wikipedia, with all it's warts, is the single most important resource on the Internet, and becoming more useful and important every day. It works amazingly well.
I have to assume that wholesale removal of links from a page, or removal or articles for no reason will not stand very long uncorrected.
(p.s. I'm not a shill for Wikipedia - just a happy user.)
| 5:40 pm on Dec 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have a few articles that I track and routinely delete outbound links. The articles are relevant to my industry but I never add a link to my own site. Since any link to a particular company is irrelevant and likely to be seen as spam, my actions are intended to level the playing field.
Anyone looking at the article's history would probably think I'm "staking a claim" but I'm neither an admin nor have any special privileges above any other Wikipedia user... My goals happen to mesh will with Wikipedia culture and thus, my actions tend to not get reverted.
As with any community, taking some time to understand it will greatly increase your ability to successfully participate.
| 10:04 am on Dec 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
RobertRogers, how can you start a thread about your inability to use Wikipedia to promote your own sites, and then complain that people are using Wikipedia to do the same thing?
A long-standing Wikipedia value is "no self-promotion", and for good reason.
If your site is worth linking to, then someone else will add the link. If you feel it necessary to jump-start the process, I suggest posting on the Talk page for the article about why you feel your site is a worthy addition and see if someone else will add it.
Incidentally, I have links to my site from various Wikipedia articles, which were not added (or suggested) by me. If your content is good then others will find it.
| 3:56 pm on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I guess you might be adding links as anonymous users, if yes better to create a user account and try to add your link complying their TOS, I hope they'll not delete it.