Forum Moderators: phranque
Next, I looked at some areas were I compete directly with Wikipedia and got sick. I can’t compete with them on anything that is general in nature.
I have a site that I have not updated in about a year. My interest had changed and I moved on to my next project. The site was dying a slow death and I assumed it was falling apart because I had not updated it regularly. After looking was the relevant Wikipedia entries for that area, I see that I have been out classed and out produced by the “army” of Wikipedia volunteers.
Very focused (for smaller and smaller audiences) content sites may be alright in the near term. But general content sites are in trouble.
None of us can compete with wiki on quantity, but we can on quality; we can pick and choose the info our readers want, and present in a way that is helpful to them.
Wiki is just one way of using info; there are an infinity of other approaches.
I think of wiki as complementary to what I do (indeed, I often link to them, if the have useful info), but I never see them as a competitor. I don't want to be an online encyclopedia. Who does?
Whilst Wikipedia can answer 'what is a widget' pretty well; there is no way they can compete against original content and research without entirely copying it.
The underlying message is that if all you do is read, digest and recycle, wikipedia can do that really well. However, if you are writing things which have never been written about in public before, you are in a position of great strength.
No problem!
it depends upon other sources and is necessarily less complete than the sum of those sources
there is no way they can compete against original content and research without entirely copying it.
But if your content is also original and unique, you can still do well.
Speaking as a frequent wiki user, I also look at other sources, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
While wiki is big, and in some areas, excellent (and no pop-ups!), I really don't believe it's damaged my sites ... or yours.
Wiki is baseline info - I'd be very surprised if many people look no further ... life goes on ;)
Don't forget that at its worst, wiki is utterly biest (if you are a Brit, look up Cliff Richard and vomit at the crawly copy), and at it's best it's an encyclopedia - ie boring++!.
I truly believe that no decent site need fear wiki.
Wiki works because it is the epitome of user-contributed, vastly original content, that is often spot-on.
That might make it an original rearrangement of words (e.g. 'original' in Google's eyes) but it does not mean it is original
That proves my point beautifully!
It's not a matter of fearing Wiki or whether their content is 100% original.
From what the original poster of this thread is conveying - what matters IS what Google, MSN, Yahoo, etc. see. When you're talking about competing in the SERPs it's what's in their eyes that counts.
Ultimately, it isn't what the SEs see and say, but what searchers do with that information.
In my view, appearing one below wiki is unlikely to do much harm, provided your entry clearly distinguishes what you do from what wiki does. For an increasing number of people, I am quite sure that wiki is the 'site of last resort' in a feeble or spammy serp - not by any means an automatic first choice.
Granted, if the wiki pushes you onto the next page, that might not be so hot. But if you stay close, then on some search terms, you are likely to be one above, anyway.
Either way, there's no point worrying; wiki is here to stay, both in real life, and in the serps. It's really a matter of being unique and original, and not trying to be encyclopaedic.
And BTW, a thought for Wikipedists:
"Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good." - Samuel Johnson
