SEO

All Wikipedia Links Are Now NOFOLLOW

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) 

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

Carsten Cumbrowski

 All Wikipedia Links Are Now NOFOLLOW
Carsten Cumbrowski has years of experience in Affiliate Marketing and knows both sides of the business as the Affiliate and Affiliate Manager. Carsten has over 10 years experience in Web Development and 20 years in programming and computers in general. He has a personal Internet Marketing Resources site at Cumbrowski.com.To learn more about Carsten, check out the "About Page" at his web site. For additional contact options see this page.

Comments are closed.

122 thoughts on “All Wikipedia Links Are Now NOFOLLOW

  1. “No Link will get any credit at the major search engines.”

    Is that right? I know Google said that links with nofollow would count for nothing, but what little research has been done by anyone would seem to indicate that they do still count those links. MSN and Yahoo have also not stated how they will handle nofollow links, and both handle them differently.

    Regardless, I think it’s a shame, though perhaps unavoidable, that Wikipedia have gone this route. It’s one of the most authoritative sites on the web. I also doubt it will have a major impact on spam – lots of people use Wikipedia as a source for links and information for articles (meaning a link on Wikipedia can easily generate many more links elsewhere), and links on Wikipedia generate a lot of traffic. Adding nofollow only addresses one of plenty of reasons for spammers to try to get their URLs on Wikipedia.

  2. Hi Dave,

    Believe me if I say that a lot of people were thinking about it a lot and for a long period of time. I referred to several discussions about this topic in my post which are a good read since most facets of the issue are being addressed there. I recommend it to anybody who cares about this subject.

    It’s a lot to read, but it shows how much things had to be considered. The decision was not a sudden one.

    There were probably a lot more discussions, mostly smaller ones. I referred to the bigger ones that consolidate a lot of those smaller ones. If you know any other interesting and relevant discussions about this topic, feel free to post a link to it here.

    I tried to address the bigger picture of the problem in my post from December which I also refer to in my post. May be it was because it was posted during the holidays, I don’t know, but nobody was discussing the general problem which is far beyond Wikipedia.

  3. btw. If Google tweaks their system in a way that some links will counted as vote regardless of the nofollow attribute, fine. Perfect actually. The Links are still doing what they are intended to do, refer humans to another site of great value. The algorithms of search engines that added something else to the purpose of a link is a separate issue, an Issue that causes severe problems for sites like Wikipedia. Search Engines need to fix their system, not sites. The NOFOLLOW decision at Wikipedia is a message to the search engines.

    Your system is broke! NOFOLLOW will not fix it, but by adding NOFOLLOW to every link are the search engines forced to come up with other solutions to determine what link they determine trustworthy and which one not.

    The fact that Wikipedia is such a great Authority will hopefully make search engines spend some time to figure out a way to determine which link they should count and which one not.

    The message is also targeted at the less sophisticated spammers in China, Russia etc. that simply do volume and are happy to yield a return of $1 for a days work. The general nofollow is a message that hopefully will reach those spammers during the next months. It does not not matter how much volume you throw at it, because nothing will stick. If it hits an area that has traffic it will be gone quickly.

    The system established at Wikipedia and enhanced and optimized over time works to ensure that it stays that way. If it hits “dead” areas of Wikipedia with virtually no traffic , the incentive is gone to get at least some link love from your spam.

    The hope is that the return for spamming Wikipedia will be so low that it does not even make any sense for those spammers that don’t need much return to be happy.

    You can live perfectly fine in India for $1 a day for example. If Spamming Wikipedia reduces that down to $0.25, the spammer will probably look for other targets. And those other targets will also go away eventually, but that is a complete different story.

  4. Carsten,

    I think that this is a welcomed addition to Wikipedia and will keep marketers and SEOs on their toes.

    It comes back to the question, what is the value of a link? A link from Wikipedia is a valuable thing for research, however, as with most sites on the Internet, it is about generating revenue. If you are listed in Wikipedia and this is helping you generate revenue, good for you, but this should be an added benefit not something to be expected.

    I think that the real winner in this is the end user.

  5. This turns Wikipedia into a black hole of link equity and will have a massive effect on their search rankings because equity will be passed from one page to another internally.

    It looks like Wikipedia Stubs will be more relevant now than pages containing real content.

    In some ways this is unethical

    I have just linked through to here from my blog post discussing this

  6. The funny thing is that the more spam that is trimmed from Wikipedia the more enticing the existing links become to search engines making it a vector for spammers again making the search engines ignore the links again making pzzft…………
    NO CARRIER

  7. Andy,

    Being an editor for a bit over a year now at wikipedia teached me a lot of stuff that is going on there not visible to somebody who does not know or does not care.

    I also do know a thing or two about SEO and SEM which came naturally as an Affiliate Marketer since we try everything no matter how crazy. If it works we get paid and if it does not we don’t. I am no SEO Expert or claim to be one. I am not even a SEO professional, which makes also a bit more unbiased I would say.

    Google figured out by themselves that talk pages are used in a sneaky way for SEO purposes. Links where added to “discuss” their addition to the article. I tested it myself and I found out that a link on a articles talk page is much better than on the articles page itself when it comes to relevance and PR boosting, if the talk page belongs to a article that causes frequently heated debates. Google excluded the talk pages from the index and PR calculation I blogged about that in September.

    Wikipedia did not add a No Index, No Follow to those pages and also did not exclude them via Robots.txt. Google made that decision.

    What Google did not know (obviously) is the fact that there is much more than just talk pages to consider. Heck I know what I am talking about, because I shot myself into my own foot by supporting the NO FOLLOW attribute.

    My USER Page has a PR5 and also my User Talk Pages and Talk Pages Archive. Project Pages like the SPAM Project have a PR7 and the Project Talk Pages a PR5. Links from those pages go to sites of mine for reference reason for people who want to learn more about me and what I do. My Wikipedia User page used to outrank my website for my own name (where the domain name is my name).

    User pages don’t get a lot of direct traffic except from other editors that want to learn more about a fellow editor. They are not included by default in the search and links to user pages from main space (article) pages is also not allowed (will be changed by another editor if you do that).

    They should not rank and their vote should not be as strong as from an article page. A User page link is a personal vote.

    Links from an article page are most of the time collective votes, except new Article pages that is spam (new stub that was added for no other reason than spam).

    Links in an article that remain in an article for a long time usually had more than just one challenger who wanted to remove it or replace it with a different source. But the reference (link) stuck which makes it an even more authoritarian vote.

    All this can’t be told to the SE via Meta Tags, robots.txt , HTML attributes etc. And it shouldn’t, because it can be manipulated.

    The NO FOLLOW makes all links equal again and forces the SE to determine via their smart algorithms what to count and what not. I don’t need to be a engineer to give them some ideas about what to do.

    See Main Space Article Pages as authority and links on them as a strong vote, but not right from the start they appear.

    The longer the link remains on an article, the stronger the vote becomes (compare it to buying a magazine because it seems to be interesting vs. subscribing to it. Somebody who is a subscriber for a long period of time has probably a much stronger opinion about the magazine than somebody who picked it up at a news stand).

    Talk pages are discussion pages. Treat them like you treat links from forums. Same for user pages, user talk pages, project pages etc.

    The SE ranking system is broke. NO FOLLOW is a scapegoat at causes other issues that are much more severe, such as. Using a no follow on an affiliate link for Google to avoid problems, even though you recommend the site, product or service honestly and all your heart.

    I have a bunch of links made no follow on my own pet project site because of that, not because I would not vote for the destination site, but to avoid that Google throws it into a bucket it does not belong to. I have a whole page up just talking about the “intent” and what I do and don’t do, but SE spiders are not the best readers and get that.

    Loren Feldman summed the whole issue up nicely.

    But the message is also directed to the not so informed spammers out there. If there is no exception, then there is no “but” or “maybe”. 0.001 * 1,000,000 is still 1,000, but 0 * 1,000,000 is still 0. The hope is that it will deter some spammers to waste their time as well as wikipedians time for nothing.

  8. Wow, I use Wiki daily and had never even noticed any SPAM but I guess it may help reduce the amount of people abusing the system. Is Craigslist next for the no-follow?

  9. :( This is sad. I have links on wikipedia related to Ali G – and will miss the google help from this news…. Westside…

  10. russians will continue on spamming anyway. they have their scripts that they run, they dont care if its follow or nofollow.

    “it’s always better to span, who know how google treats nofollow” – that what i read on forums..

  11. This is going to ruin a few people SEO jobs, I know of many people who are ranking sites high in google just by spamming wikipedia, I guess they are g0ing to start looking for Mc Donalds jobs now. ;)

  12. It may no longer pass PageRank …but I have a feeling the engines will still rely on Wikipedia for determining relevancy. It is just too good of a resource.

  13. Great, throw the baby out with the bath water. Don’t attack spammers directly, instead cripple the web for legimate users. I’m so glad you got it all worked out for the rest of us. In my humble opinion, you’ve just broken things, just like the spammers.

  14. OpenID and the quality of links the OpenID user submits = credible.

    Spam would be maintained if links are based on the person submitting the link and the only possible way to track it is via OpenID.

    Bloggers, forumers, reviewers == OpenID

    I guess it needs work, encrypted OpenID + validation, etc. etc.

    Now you have a new formula for links if you add the user submitting it into context.

    My 2 cents.

  15. It would be ideal if they could make it so links that are added have the nofollow tag for say 60 days. That way after 60 days if nobody has edited the link out, it is relevant and should be there.

    Programming that would use more resources and such so I’m not sure it would be worth it, but that would be neat.

  16. This makes sense. It will cut down on the spam in articles of wikipedia. Will this mean that less editors will be going through wikipedia to remove links because less people will be putting up articles for pr? We’ll have to wait and see the outcome for this.

  17. I think this is a case of greed. It’s about”the rich” wanting to stay rich, and not let the “poor guys” (new websites) “in the door”.

    In Layman’s terms, people like Carsten Cumbrowski don’t want people having high quality backlinks, if he can help it, because that would detract from his overall “web net worth”, as he would no longer see this advantage he has. The way Carsten sees things, well, he got there first, and since he got there first, nobody else should have a chance to follow.

    So while Carsten was able to receive backlinks from Wikipedia less the “rel=nofollow” tag, he successfully campaigned for the denials of future submitters to Wikipedia, to maintain his edge. Well, it worked. You know the saying: “Money talks, (you know what) walks”. The big guns hold the power, and Wikipedia has listened to the big guns.

    It’ll be up to the poor guys to find creative ways to get around this, and eventually become “big players” just like Carsten.

    Jason Weber
    The Vision Depot
    http://www.thevisiondepot.com

  18. You got it all figured out Jason. And I did talk about this for months in public to deceive everybody.

    Now I demoted my own pR5 user pages to not pass any Google love to my personal sites to have have them treacherously drop in ranking.

    Like RoySAC.com which ranks #9 for the highly commercial and competitive phrase “ansi art” will be pushed down to #10 or worse that I the “big” player Carsten Cumbrowski will be able to sell it for 2.5 billion dollars to the Industry Giants ACiD.org which is operated by the multi-billionaire Chris W. aka RaDMan or to the Text Art Scene Behemoth Sixteencolors.net.

    I screwed them all Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, IBM , Exxon, Walmart, Coca Cola, Wikipedia, Digg .. everybody!

    This response does not make any sense as does Jason’s comment. Don’t even try to interpret anything into this, including any fortune telling scam or fortune cookie … blah blah…

  19. Carsten? Can you explain, in any other (understandable) terms, your animosity toward newer websites like mine — and I am a legitimate company, not a spam website — gaining credibility?

    Until you do so, then what you say merits no attention. Are you afraid of websites like mine gaining credibility, gaining a solid PR, gaining SERPS? Does anyone else but me have a feeling that’s what Carsten is thinking, and that’s where his motivation is?

    Carsten, you may be a wonderful person. I don’t know you. But to campaign to deny young companies the opportunity to gain net “web worth” is nothing other than greed.

    If you’re “really” concerned about spam, and not your own net “web worth”, then find a way for companies like me to gain web-presence without rich detractors like yourself, who happened to find Wikipedia first, while calling us “spam”. Give us a chance, other than campaigning for major PR5+ sites to exclude us.

    Jason Weber
    The Vision Depot
    http://www.thevisiondepot.com

  20. Jason: “animosity toward newer websites like mine” … what are you talking about here?

    The NOFOLLOW attribute is a message to search engines to not count the link as a vote thus exclude it from their PR calculation. Every outgoing link that exist on the Wikipedia Site has this attribute now and all now links will get it too.

    If SEs treat the nofollow as they intended it, no link will give any PR to the external site. I basically fought for demoting the links I have from Wikipedia due to my activities and my user page and might have all of the sites drop in ranking. Shooting myself in the foot basically, if I would have been after that link juice from Wikipedia.

    … did you ever check what I did at Wikipedia before you started your allegations against me?

    For example, just have a look at this. I am not BozMos, I wrote the comments to BozMo’s predictions.

    Regarding Tips for new sites. Yeah, I have a free resource site which is a pet project of mine which pays for itself, but is not my main source of income. Here is the Link. I am working on the re-design so don’t give me a hard time about it.

    There are tons of free resources, cheap and basic to enterprise level. Several links are affiliate links which pay for the site but are not the reason why I added them. I explain in great detail what I do with the site, where I link to, why I link and how I link here at the Editorial Note of the Site.

    Yes, I accept your apology. Misunderstandings happen. I am not resentful ;).

  21. Having a look at the talk pages and talk archive pages of the Affiliate Marketing and Search Engine Optimization articles might also give you some ideas what I did over the last year. My Wikipedia Username is “Cumbrowski” which is almost as good as using my SSN and I use in my Signature my Text Artist Nick Name “Roy”. It’s a lot of text.. several dozens hours of arguing … happy reading.

  22. To Dave Child,
    If you goto the original post listed in update #2 you will see: “We’ve also discussed this issue with colleagues at our fellow search engines and would like to thank MSN Search and Yahoo! for supporting this initiative. ” so yes, MSN & Yahoo both support this.

  23. I’ve just hacked up a quick WordPress plugin that (assuming it works correctly…) tags all your outgoing links to Wikipedia as rel=”nofollow”.

    http://whatjapanthinks.com/wikipedia-nofollow/

    Here’s a thought: with the addition of rel=”nofollow”, will the Wikipedia adminstators be more lax in their standards for external links, thus actually adding to the link spam problem? I know my one linkback from a minor Wikipedia article (it’s tops for the main keyword) gets about 10 or 20 visits per day, so getting your link onto a more-trafficked page must be a great source regardless of SEO.

  24. Hi Ken,
    you should have read the discussions instead of writing a plug in that is useless and misses the mark.

    > Wikipedia adminstators be more lax in their standards for external links,

    Wikipedia Admins? And then? Do you understand the idea of a Wiki and Wikipedia in particular?

    So you suggest that everybody who edits at wikipedia and tries to create a good resource should not mind if article XYZ links to 1,523 Websites of low quality and duplicated content from the original quality source?

    Could you do me a favor and turn off your email spam filters and let in your inbox and while you are wasting your time on those junk email manually, do me the favor and buy something from that junk that is offered to you.

    Don’t like that? Why? It would solve the Spam Problem, because no filters = no problem. :)

  25. Good, there is no reason where there shouldn’t be a NoFollow tag in wiki.
    Its a site for resources. If you read something there that you find useful and there is a link to a site with more information on it, click the link.
    Just because someone posted their own link in, and it didn’t get removed doesn’t mean that Wiki shouldn’t prevent itself from being abused. NOFOLLOW is across the board, not just Google, its going to affect rankings in all the engines. If you do a search on something on any of those engines, just make sure your site ranks higher the the wikipage that has a link to your site. If you can’t do this, get out of the business.

  26. Even though those link junkies don’t get any PR gain from the link on wiki pages, but the it still have them as a stepping stone to get indirect traffic to them. BTW, what are we going for higher PR? TRAFFIC!

  27. I see no real problem with the no follow tags. As a very small, fairly new website I was hoping to eventually be included in the resources section for the term ‘Toast’. I thought this would raise my page rank and bring in relevant traffic.

    I never attempted to post my link to Wikipedia because my site is nowhere near finished. But once it is I will try to be included despite that fact that it wont help my search engine ranking. That shouldn’t be what Wikipedia is about.

    Not that I have ever come across a lot of spam on Wikipedia but I hope it does help the editors.

  28. Toast Guy: And when you do, don’t just add the link, but check the article and improve it or even extend it.

    If you build an authority site to the topic with unique content you might want to take a bit of the content and include it into the Wikipedia article and include the original source of the content as the reference.

    I can’t believe that the article at Wikipedia is complete and absolute perfect today already.

    The topic is your passion I would imagine and I am sure that some of the stuff in the article is bugging you already or is simply not 100% accurate.

  29. Well, as a Wikipedia admin myself, I can tell you that 99% of the decisions to whether or not external links are permitted are not made by the admins – there’s just over 1,600,000 articles, and there’s barely over 1,0o0 admins (not all of whom are active). Most decisions are made by the humble editor (i.e., anyone). Blatant spam is blacklisted. Sneaky spam is dredged up by people who dedicate a lot of their time to rooting it out. We have no idea how much spam there is in Wikipedia, as (obviously) we have no idea how much there is that we haven’t identified (if we could identify it, it wouldn’t be there!)

    A usual rule of thumb applied is that if the account that added the link (or an anonymous IP editor) has made no other edits to Wikipedia, just appears, adds a URL to their website into an article (or articles), then vanishes, it’s probably spam. Not always, and it’s never removed without checking where the link goes.

    If you want to know who to blame for NOFOLLOW being implemented on Wikipedia, btw, blame the SEO competitions … I think they were the straw that broke the camel’s back.

  30. So wiki has solved part1 of the external issue now the second part is the wholesale site wide links to commerical enterprises such as Wiki Travel. Internet Brands owes Wiki Travel and states on their site that they intend to commerically exploit their site. They have recieved thousands of links from Wiki. Compnaies like this should be completely removed from Wiki.

  31. Hi Proto,

    thanks for the comment fellow wikipedian.

    I am preaching to the SEO and Affiliate Marketing this stuff for months already as you can see here, here and here for example.

    Progress is slow, but we are getting there :)

    Steve,

    It is not about commercial site or not, but relevance and value for the reader of the article. Nobody is against “Commercial sites” in Wikipedia, but they are for obvious reasons more scrutinized than non commercial sites for the obvious reasons.
    Wikia provides services for the Wikipedia Foundation free of charge.

    The benefits Wikia gets out of it are just, compared to some “social activities” that are common practice in SEO.

  32. wikipedia is not really a credible site to begin with. The content changes so frequently, get’s vandalized, converted, reverted etc etc that any person who is seriously doing any amount of research that is looking for true validity simply wouldn’t even bother with it.

    It’s a great idea, but it is an idealists idea and not a pragmatic idea which is what the real problem with it is. To bad human nature will always defeat the best intentions of the nicest people, but wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of anything in it’s huge archive is true, untrue or contended.

    It is at this point a virtual waste of time to bother with it…unless you’re unemployed with a lot of time on your hands and you like to type

  33. Google gives Wiki billions of visitors. I think that one of the main reasons why do they use nofollow nowis the Google’ cooperation.

  34. I agree with their policy, no folow tags wil improve the quality. Wikepedia should be just for relevant information by people with no alterior motives

  35. No follow for wikipedia and blogs is a big mistake as far as I’m concerned, but it does preserve PR from going to outbound links at least.

  36. There is no question people will try to abuse Wikipedia for the purpose of generating inbound links. If Wikipedia is to have any chance of credibility, this seems like a must.

    I have noted there are several other wikis out there that have yet to follow this approach.

  37. This is good information. I have seen SEO books devoting entire chapters to putting links on Wikipedia in order to generate traffic. I have not yet used this technique myself, but now I won’t waste my time.

  38. Wikipedia is still a very good source of traffic. One of my websites has 4 backlinks from Wikipedia, they bring around 400 unique visitors a day. If making all links no follow helps keeping the spammers away …

  39. Funny thing is they do all this, but the nofollow tag doesn’t work. I got linkjuice from Wikipedia even when they had the nofollow. In fact, even when some links were removed and went (wrongly!) into the Project Spam section, I still got a boost in SEO. Even when they change the www to SPAM – somehow being in the WikiProject_Spam directory helped – go figure.

  40. To be honest I don’t agree that all links should be no-follow. I think that there should be a section in each page were links don’t have no follow links, but these links would need approval before apperaing on the page. That way the genuine sources of information don’t pay cause of the spammers

  41. The official claim is that links with the rel=nofollow attribute do not influence the search engine rankings of the target page. In addition to Google, Yahoo and MSN also support the rel=nofollow attribute.

    i think it helps indexing..

  42. I really hate to read differences about no and do follow links. I’m sure they had good reason for what they did. That’s it.

  43. This is going to ruin a few people SEO jobs, I know of many people who are ranking sites high in google just by spamming wikipedia, I guess they are g0ing to start looking for Mc Donalds jobs now

  44. I agree with malta that not every link should deserve no-follow. Only unuseful links deserve that. Inbound links have help me a lot in searching information from the internet by giving related articles

  45. I don’t agree that all links should be no-follow. I think they should put a section that the links don’t have no follow links, but these links would need approval before appearing on the page

  46. also they should allow links to “media sites” as they call them if media is related to article subject… i have web site with wallpapers of nba stars, site that has few 1000s of people day by day getting wallpapers of their favorite stars… why someone think surfers on Wikipedia who visit Kobe’s page wouldn’t be interested into having link to site where they can get wallpapers of him in external links section :( or link to YouTube with Kobe’s videos… it’s just stupid :(

  47. 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

  48. The decision by Wikipedia to use nofollow is part of the larger problem they have had lately– taking themselves way too seriously.

  49. 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

    1. 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!

  50. 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.

  51. 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

  52. 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?

  53. 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.

  54. I think it is ridiculous that Wikipedia did this. I never knew this before. Anyway, thanks Carsten for sharing this great information..

  55. 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?

  56. 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.

  57. 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..

  58. So everyone on Wiki, regardless of contributing legitimate value, gets labeled as a possible spammer? I think this says more about Wiki's inability to effectively deal with spam than anything.

  59. You have to use no follow to prevent PR leakage and to preserve the integrity of the site.