Wikipedia's scorched earth policy on everything SEO.

[g1smd]

I seem to remember that Wikipedia had a section listing early SEO pioneers and the most well-known SEO personalities (those that speak at or run major conferences, write books, etc).

Looking in a few days ago, it seems that most of the content has been deleted as "not noteworthy".

Editors at Wikipedia have recently deleted the pages for Brett Tabke, Bruce Clay, Jill Whalen, Aaron Wall, and many others.

Barry Schwartz and Jessie Stricchiola (even "White or black hat") are also currently up for deletion.

That will leave just Barbara Coll, Vanessa Fox, Jeremy Schoemaker and Danny Sullivan; certainly NOT a representative sample of our craft.

With actions like this, the early history of the web is being lost at an alarming rate.

No, don't all rush over there to plead for reprieve. Any hint of canvassing just leads to greater calls to remove such content.

[wheel]

Wikipedia is stupid. That's all you really need to know.

Certainly the last thing you need to be doing with your day is attempting to correct misinformation on the site. That's got absolutely 0 benefits.

[J_RaD]

any real reason for this?

[wheel]

Probably nothing more than some idiot with a bee in their bonnet. The names deleted are not noteworthy, not enough citations. So you show them the citations. Oh, well those citations are not noteworthy enough. etc. I've been down this road, as have many others. It's not an encyclopedia, it's information dictated by politics.

Might be worthwhile if it mattered, like a link from DMOZ. But it doesn't really matter. So who cares?

[greenleaves]

I love Wikepedia an hate it.

I love some links I got from pages on there. They have been up for years and can be extremely powerful.

I hate the editors. But then again, they probably hate me with just as much justification :P

[graeme_p]

Wikipedia is good for: anything tech related, Doctor Who plot summaries, finding links to more original sources.

Wikipedia is bad for: controversy, stuff people feel strongly about, and anything that an editor has an obsession about.

[martinibuster]

Wikipedia is good for: anything tech related, Doctor Who plot summaries, finding links to more original sources.

Earlier this evening I was on wikipedia (because it was ranked highest) reading about an actor's career then went to IMDB. Similar content. That's the thing I have never liked about wikipedia, that it feels as if it consists of stolen content rewritten from other online sources.

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source of information. The content is not authored by authoritative content producers, it can only be considered a human-powered scraper site. The site even requires citations from other sources- i.e. the information published is not authoritative because the authors are not experts in the topic. The information cannot therefore be anywhere accurate unless it was scraped from a GENUINE and AUTHORITATIVE source because the authors are not experts.

If the information on Wikipedia is not authoritative, if Wikipedia is essentially a human-powered scraper site, does it deserve to be at the top of the SERPs? Should Wikipedia reap the rewards of being an efficient scraper of information?

I agree that Wikipedia is convenient. But wouldn't it be better to rank the same information from the authoritative sources it originated from? Google stopped ranking information aggregators because they wanted to send site visitors directly to the information searchers were seeking. Yet this did not happen with Wikipedia, making it the most successful aggregator of information of all time.

Nevermind the bureaucratic approach that technically it has the links to be at the top. Regardless of the links, Wikipedia's presence at the top of the SERPs obscures the ORIGINAL source of information.

Getting back on topic, I can understand why the editors may not be fond of SEOs. But this is an example of why Wikipedia is not an authoritative website. This is important information being curated by people who are not authorities in the topic.

[graeme_p]

@martinibuster, I entirely agree.

I had an lengthy argument with someone on Slashdot about religion (I just get dragged into things sometimes) and he kept quoting from Wikipedia and another Encylopedia. When I asked him for primary sources, he said he did not have the time to find them - that attitude is very common. Wikipedia will do, so do not bother with authoritative or primary sources.

[martinibuster]

Exactly, yes. Wikipedia is a convenient source of aggregated content but Wikpedia is not authoritative.

[Essex_boy]

Wikipedia - Ive had two friends listed on here one way way wrong. Take it with a pinch of salt.

[CMidd]

Looking in a few days ago, it seems that most of the content has been deleted as "not noteworthy".

LOL, "not noteworthy" pure Wikipedia Nazi talk.

Wikipedia has 6 pages of of content for the Character of a video games called Halo! Yes, full length detailed pages about fictional video game characters LOL.

Wikipedia is completely backwards, but the real problem is that the average reader doesn't know it, and thank it's an authoritative source.

[piatkow]

That's the thing I have never liked about wikipedia, that it feels as if it consists of stolen content rewritten from other online sources.

In several cases I have found remarkable similarities between Wikipedia articles and specific "authority" sources. I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that the author is also the appropriate Wikipedia editor.

Yes, full length detailed pages about fictional video game characters LOL.

But only one page for the entire population of Ambridge - no sense of priorities!

[topr8]

... but the archers are real life aren't they? are you saying that they are fictional too?