I blogged about the Wikipedia Issues with SPAM and the discussions about the use of NOFOLLOW for ALL external Links from Wikipedia. It was done, finally.
As of now are all outbound links from the english Wikipedia Site using the NOFOLLOW attribute, no exceptions.
No matter where you place it, Article Page, Talk Page, User Page, Project Page, whatever. No Link will get any credit at the major search engines.
This will not eliminate SPAM at Wikipedia, but it will over time certainly reduce it a bit. Especially the spam of invisible pages that have virtually no traffic but at least some PageRank is now virtually a waste of time for any spammer.
Spamming of areas with traffic was futile already without the NOFOLLOW attribute in place, since Editors remove the SPAM within hours or even minutes after it happened.
There were numerous detailed discussions about the PROs and CONs of the use of NOFOLLOW. I was personally a supporter of this since I started editing at Wikipedia.
Update 1: Wikipedia Mailing List Message about the official decision by Jimbo Wales (Wikipedia Co-Founder)Â
Update 2: There seems to be some need to explain what NOFOLLOW is and where it comes from. It was started by Google to fight Blog SPAM. It did not work out I might add. It then started to take new spins and created more problems and mistrust than the problem it was supposed to help solving.
See the Original Post to NOFOLLOW at the Google Blog from 2005
Well that will help a lot for most search engines.
I’m still confusing?
So the debate is: no follow links – good or bad?
It’s depends if your link is on a website that get’s lots of targeted traffic and you get some of that traffic well nofollow makes no difference.
If however your trying to gain search engine ranking by having links and trying to gain PR then nofollow makes a difference
I think it is ridiculous that Wikipedia did this. They should share the wealth rather than be a SEO black hole.
The decision by Wikipedia to use nofollow is part of the larger problem they have had lately– taking themselves way too seriously.
very nice information… =)
thanks for syaring..
keep posting ok!
thanks :-)
Graphic Design Schools
Well, putting a no-follow is correct, but then again, there should be some way of rewarding those who seriously help wikipedia by doing some quality work for it. So either give the genuine helpers a do-follow or pay them something from the $6 million donation that wikipedia is currently asking for
Wikipedia Revealed
I personally use Wikipedia and have considered writing articles for them, for what reason I ask myself? If I can’t even get a counting link from a page I dedicate my time to create then FORGET IT! Even if I create a page for them I am in the long run competing with myself. Wikipedia always gives my websites high unwanted competition SO WHY IN THE NAME would I want to help them compete with my websites? Their slogan is ad free forever. Well fine but I make my money from ads and I am getting angered with the insane competition! What is really happening is Wikipedia is created an internet monarchy especially with this Google Sandbox thing. Big sites like Wikipedia are in reality trying to dominate the internet and as a result killing any chance of new website creators from making money online. THINK TWICE BEFORE YOU CREATE YOUR NEXT PAGE FOR WIKIPEDIA OR DONATE TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL WEBSITE BUSINESS KILLING PROGRAM!
Just found this article via Digg, I feel so out of date! It’s a good move in Wikipedia’s part I think but bad news for SEO ‘experts’.
How can I get a link to my website from Wikipedia
yowsa
what
whateva
whateva testing
found this on google great article, good read
Good to know I always thought it counts for the search engines.
Wow! never knew this happened!
thanks for the post…
We’re looking for a reciprocal link to our website
Wikipedia is a great projekt for making Information available. That alone should be profit enough for everyone.
Wikipedia is full of infor mation thank for the post
I think it is ridiculous that Wikipedia did this. I never knew this before. Anyway, thanks Carsten for sharing this great information..
i thought wiki was always nofollow anyways u learn something new everyday lol
I can understand why Wikipedia would introduce nofollow, but it is unfortunate that quality sites that link out will not get any credit for the link. The real problem is page ranking and placing importance to a site that has more more/better links then another site. It’s a system that is doomed to fail.
really? I never know this before.. I have link on wikipedia.. huh..
Number 10 going to a great blog thank you master continuous tracking
makese sense – surprised how long it took to implement
Thanks for the information, as for the reasons why they did this it was clearly a business decision that worked for them.
Didn’t know wikipedia was nofollow gues it would be otherwise it would be spammed the hell out of lol
There are many information in wikipedia…hope there will be no people misused it after this :-)
many people misuse wikipedia for their own purpose. that’s why wikipedia admin change the attributes
I think that good for wikipedia use NoFollow, furthermore wikipedia is a very good website and informative, so people will stay go there to get information
No worries on the nofollow – I just made it here from Wikipedia. Matt Cutt just announced PageRank evaportion per site sculpting. Is this a big WOO! HOO! or not?
Page Rank is slightly over-rated anyway, sites can easily rank #1 even with a page rank of 0 or 1, so no-follow isn’t an end all.
So many people here are missing the point. Wikipedia wants their cake and to eat it too here. They want ALL of their inbound links to give them page credibility, yet want to discount all of their outbound links so NONE of the outbound links give any credit to anyone else.
Here is an example. Wikipedia has 2 lines on subject X and then a link to website Y, which has 500 pages on this subject. A million people a day click on the wiki page, find the link and realize the second page is a better resource. But since Google allows for this blind No Follow, all of that real relevance on the subject continues to go to Wikipedia and then die in their dead end of programming.
Site Y is the real relevant location that should be #1 in the rankings, but since Wiki controls the outbound link pop – Site Y never gets where it needs to in the rankings. There is no way anyone can condone this with a straight face. People are NOT getting the most relevant results and lots of worthy sites are on page 2 and beyond.
another great posting. lol
I think it is ridiculous that Wikipedia did this. I never knew this before. Anyway, thanks Carsten for sharing this great information..
yes, i know.thanks http://www.crazypurchase.com
that is realy good news.
well no comment about that,
weight loss shake recipes
Yah man, I just signed up at Wikipedia for the first time today, and was going to a talk page to ask contributors if the news release on my site was worthy of being added to the references list for a page. Part of my reason for bothering with it was in hopes that I might get a valuable link out of the deal, in addition to possibly some traffic. Are there any compelling reasons to attempt getting links from Wikipedia? Do no-followed links carry authority? even though they don’t pass reputation?
hmm know i know it that all wikipedia links are Nofollow
Interesting. I thought it has always been do follow links
If you’re adding links to any site without any intent to create value then don’t start crying about it. Concentrate on making a kick-ass site instead of trying to cheat the system.
I never thought that wikipedia will do this…
anyways good blog post..search engine journal is one the best blog that I’ve ever found in the topic of SEO..
I always look forward to your articles..
Thanks for the information, as for the reasons why they did this it was clearly a business decision that worked for them.