Comments on: The Lisa’s Problem With Wikipedia Explained http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/ SEO and Internet Marketing Blog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:23:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Charlie Jones http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-16004 Charlie Jones Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:05:37 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-16004 <p>Wikipedia is not great, good, or even acceptable. It is a joke, and a poison to the internet. It seeps into the search results, and regularly dominates the top5 results of a search. The worst part is that too often, an attempt to bypass wikipedia and look further down the results list is met with further wikipedia results... I cannot avoid it, and it causes me an untold number of lost hours of sifting the Wikipedia results, wikipedia scraper sites, etc.</p> <p>Wikipedia is a joke, and anyone who has spent any time editing knows that it is controlled by a handful of admins with vast amounts of power, while no form of real arbitration is available. Consensus in an edit war is reached by the person who is OCD enough to hover over their computer the longest. </p> Wikipedia is not great, good, or even acceptable. It is a joke, and a poison to the internet. It seeps into the search results, and regularly dominates the top5 results of a search. The worst part is that too often, an attempt to bypass wikipedia and look further down the results list is met with further wikipedia results… I cannot avoid it, and it causes me an untold number of lost hours of sifting the Wikipedia results, wikipedia scraper sites, etc.

Wikipedia is a joke, and anyone who has spent any time editing knows that it is controlled by a handful of admins with vast amounts of power, while no form of real arbitration is available. Consensus in an edit war is reached by the person who is OCD enough to hover over their computer the longest.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-16003 Anonymous Tue, 01 May 2007 15:25:24 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-16003 The Wikipedia is great except for the fact that anyone can get a group of people together to control a page, and use it to give them top Google PageRank by adding links to their website. The links are added as references to information, etc. Having these links are very powerful. And when a competitor tries to be added to the page, the group working together removes all references and tells a good story why other links are not relevant. It is totally wrong. The Wikipedia should not allow any links to external sites. All links should be to other Wikipedia pages. No Exceptions. The Wikipedia is great except for the fact that anyone can get a group of people together to control a page, and use it to give them top Google PageRank by adding links to their website. The links are added as references to information, etc. Having these links are very powerful. And when a competitor tries to be added to the page, the group working together removes all references and tells a good story why other links are not relevant.
It is totally wrong. The Wikipedia should not allow any links to external sites. All links should be to other Wikipedia pages.
No Exceptions.

]]> By: Joe Szilagyi http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-16002 Joe Szilagyi Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:56:42 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-16002 <p>To echo what others have said, it's the massive number of inbound links and aggressive cross-linking, between the various national Wikis, that makes them so hot on the results pages for SEO. But the information is painfully easy to manipulate, as we've often seen. </p> To echo what others have said, it’s the massive number of inbound links and aggressive cross-linking, between the various national Wikis, that makes them so hot on the results pages for SEO. But the information is painfully easy to manipulate, as we’ve often seen.

]]> By: fionnd http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-16001 fionnd Sat, 03 Mar 2007 01:24:07 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-16001 Wikpedia ranks high because of links and of course content. I agree that the content is hihgly suspect. I am sure there are some great well crafted accurate articles in wikipedia but my own personal experience with two of clients meams I do not trust it all. One of my clients competitors created an article then added information to it that was less than complimentary about the client. Every time the client tried to edit the information it was removed. Finally, after a year of wasting time on it the article was removed by wikipedia but only after multiple complaints and a threat of legal action. Until that article was removed the derogatory article was #2 for the clients name. How can a source so easily manipulated be a good thing? Wikpedia ranks high because of links and of course content. I agree that the content is hihgly suspect. I am sure there are some great well crafted accurate articles in wikipedia but my own personal experience with two of clients meams I do not trust it all. One of my clients competitors created an article then added information to it that was less than complimentary about the client. Every time the client tried to edit the information it was removed. Finally, after a year of wasting time on it the article was removed by wikipedia but only after multiple complaints and a threat of legal action. Until that article was removed the derogatory article was #2 for the clients name. How can a source so easily manipulated be a good thing?

]]> By: Ben Pfeiffer http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-16000 Ben Pfeiffer Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:35:39 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-16000 <p>I agree, I couldn't have said it better! I don't think its an issue of SEO's getting annoyed at looking at Wikipedia results we have no control over, its the persistent misinformation we are continually confronting on a day to day basis in search results about brands, history, and people we know. It would annoy anyone. </p> I agree, I couldn’t have said it better! I don’t think its an issue of SEO’s getting annoyed at looking at Wikipedia results we have no control over, its the persistent misinformation we are continually confronting on a day to day basis in search results about brands, history, and people we know. It would annoy anyone.

]]> By: webmama http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-15999 webmama Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:50:33 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-15999 Gossip and Rumour - those are the two reasons Wikipedia is not a good resource for primarily three subject matters (and many others I expect): politics, social concerns and corporations. I will address the third.<br /><br />As a Search Engine Marketer responsible for the online reputation, in search results, of large public companies, I care about what content is in the wikipedia article on that company. Much of the content for corporations is excellent but for every disenfranchised employee or stockholder this is THE place to post. Currently, there is very inaccurate and damaging material in brand name results. Attempts to remove it are reversed. Legal action is very difficult. <br /><br />Now, should Wikipedia results be dominant for less controversial subjects in search results on Google and Yahoo (yes Yahoo has jumped on the bandwagon)? I don't think so, if only because it becomes tedious and over time will be ignored. Remember when Amazon showed up in every organic result? Google changed that. Wikipedia will lose the #1 spot in the limelight soon enough but don't expect it to go away, there is some awesome research information there. Time to go edit a Wikipedia page... Gossip and Rumour – those are the two reasons Wikipedia is not a good resource for primarily three subject matters (and many others I expect): politics, social concerns and corporations. I will address the third.

As a Search Engine Marketer responsible for the online reputation, in search results, of large public companies, I care about what content is in the wikipedia article on that company. Much of the content for corporations is excellent but for every disenfranchised employee or stockholder this is THE place to post. Currently, there is very inaccurate and damaging material in brand name results. Attempts to remove it are reversed. Legal action is very difficult.

Now, should Wikipedia results be dominant for less controversial subjects in search results on Google and Yahoo (yes Yahoo has jumped on the bandwagon)? I don’t think so, if only because it becomes tedious and over time will be ignored. Remember when Amazon showed up in every organic result? Google changed that. Wikipedia will lose the #1 spot in the limelight soon enough but don’t expect it to go away, there is some awesome research information there. Time to go edit a Wikipedia page…

]]> By: Walter Earley http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-15998 Walter Earley Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:28:36 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-15998 <p>For the life of ME, I can't figure out why this Wikipedia problem can't be solved. It seems to me that 99% or more of the content of Wikipedia is good and useful information. The method of information which has produced such content is such a short period of time is great, but has problems. Why is it not possible for responsible groups to derive a "Reliablepedia" from all of the articles in the Wikipedia which are not contested, and then update their "Reliablepedia" based upon uncontested updates to the basic Wikipedia. One could imagine a "Respinsiblepedia" derived from a conservative organization, another produced by a collaboration of news organizations, and another perhaps with a more liberal slant.</p> <p></p> For the life of ME, I can’t figure out why this Wikipedia problem can’t be solved. It seems to me that 99% or more of the content of Wikipedia is good and useful information. The method of information which has produced such content is such a short period of time is great, but has problems.
Why is it not possible for responsible groups to derive a “Reliablepedia” from all of the articles in the Wikipedia which are not contested, and then update their “Reliablepedia” based upon uncontested updates to the basic Wikipedia. One could imagine a “Respinsiblepedia” derived from a conservative organization, another produced by a collaboration of news organizations, and another perhaps with a more liberal slant.

]]> By: Mary Kay Lofurno http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-15997 Mary Kay Lofurno Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:50:40 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-15997 I think the 1st reason posted is the most pressing & biggest issue. Google's mantra is to provide the best, most accurate information on a topic for its users. Wikipedia does not do this...period, by the vary nature of the medium, it is not verified. I think the 1st reason posted is the most pressing & biggest issue. Google’s mantra is to provide the best, most accurate information on a topic for its users. Wikipedia does not do this…period, by the vary nature of the medium, it is not verified.

]]> By: Schuyler Haussmann http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-15996 Schuyler Haussmann Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:00:14 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-15996 <p>I'm just a normal human (who knows nothing of SEO). I use google 1/ for professional use to find info on companies or industry that I am working on, 2/ for personal use to find info on subjects that interest me.</p> <p>In both instances, I find out that google often returns a wikipedia link first and that what I find in the wikipedia link is not relevant enough.</p> <p>To me, that simply means that, in the presence of wikipedia, google no longer does the job it is supposed to do. Google's algorithm has reached its level of incompetence. It cannot work in cases where everyone links to a site just because it is conventional wisdom that it's the best, while it is not actually the best. </p> I’m just a normal human (who knows nothing of SEO). I use google
1/ for professional use to find info on companies or industry that I am working on,
2/ for personal use to find info on subjects that interest me.

In both instances, I find out that google often returns a wikipedia link first and that what I find in the wikipedia link is not relevant enough.

To me, that simply means that, in the presence of wikipedia, google no longer does the job it is supposed to do.
Google’s algorithm has reached its level of incompetence.
It cannot work in cases where everyone links to a site just because it is conventional wisdom that it’s the best, while it is not actually the best.

]]> By: David Temple http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-15995 David Temple Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:41:35 +0000 http://www.bruceclay.com/blog-test/2007/02/the-lisas-problem-with-wikipedia-explained/#comment-15995 No, you are not being whiny (this time). I like the fact that you're not drinking the Wikipedia Koolaid and wrote what you really think. Now run, because Jimmy and his boys are coming after you. I'm curious why you don't think Wikipedia's information on cats, love, bowling, SEO, rain, blogs and staplers isn't meeting your needs. Anything we shoud know about? No, you are not being whiny (this time). I like the fact that you’re not drinking the Wikipedia Koolaid and wrote what you really think. Now run, because Jimmy and his boys are coming after you. I’m curious why you don’t think Wikipedia’s information on cats, love, bowling, SEO, rain, blogs and staplers isn’t meeting your needs. Anything we shoud know about?

]]>