DuckDuckGo Suggests Getting Links from Wikipedia to Boost Rankings

[NickMNS]

From this page: [duck.co...]

Rankings (SEO)
Ranking is a bit opaque and difficult to discern/communicate on an individual query basis because of all the various factors involved (and which change frequently).

Nevertheless, the best way to get good rankings (in pretty much all search engines) is to get links from high quality sites like Wikipedia.

Will you be adding links to your site on Wikipedia?

[justpassing]

Boost in ranking but for which keywords ?

A wikipedia's article which is listing a site among the sources, will always outrank this site :)

Also, it looks like , when a link is added to a Wikipedia's article, they create an archive of this page, ... so this archive might also interfere with your own site, from a ranking point of view ...

And finally, authors of Wikipedia's articles do not accept "rivals" (even if they took their content from these same rivals), if they see that you are listing your site in "their" article, they'll get ride of it.

[tangor]

Ha! The EDITABLE encyclopedia is always edited ... and perhaps by those not of your leaning. (They lean one way, generally left)

I have no use for Wikipedia, even though I have to constantly check their listings as some of my users (bless their hearts) want to share my stuff without permission to this website and THEIR editors tend to use it as an opportunity for SJW work...

YMMV

[keyplyr]

I once had 14 or 15 WikiPedia citations & links. This got me to look around there more. Then I found 2 pages that had blatant plagerized articles of mine with no citation or link.

I joined as an editor and reduced the scraped content down to just a few sentences conforming to fair use and added citation & link.

Then a senior editor, suspecting I was spamming, removed both those links, but of course left my content. He (she?) also found a few more of my links on other pages and removed them, even though I wasn't the editor that added them. Each time he added a nasty comment about me in the editor area and locked me out of that page.

I've not signed in as an editor since. I still have probably 10 citations & links. I see very little referred traffic from those backlinks but I know they are valuable as SEO.

They haven't removed my links even though I block both their bots, including the one that says it's link checking for removal.

[topr8]

at one time i had 4 links to 4 different sites on wikipedia ... not added by me and imho they were well deserved - those sites each served a niche and were pretty much definitive.

ii got a lot of traffic from them - maybe 5-10 years ago.

they were removed and links to lesser sites were put in their place! i assume, due to editor bias! i've never bothered with wikipedia, i assumed it is as currupt as the old DMOZ was.

[NickMNS]

i assumed it is as currupt as the old DMOZ was.

DMOZ is the first thing that came to mind when I read the post. I have always assumed that Wikipedia had some sense of integrity given that the links, being no follow, didn't count for anything. If DDG and possibly other SE's are using it as a ranking signal, then that puts it into the same light as DMOZ and will likely drive it to the same fate.