Imagine you’re Google for a moment (I accept that’s not an easy challenge!). Your job is to do the “right” job and fairly and wisely and correctly rank web pages from all across the internet on any given search term. What a job!
So you refine, refine, refine and refine some more a funky-as “algorithm” that does that job for you, and as most of us SEO-type people know, you rely pretty heavily on incoming links to determine what pages have what “authority” against a given keyword or phrase…. so far so good.
At one extreme is that category of search terms which has been “SEO-ed to hell”, like:
These are among the kinds of search terms where the SEO companies like to show off their skills, because these terms are either very hard to SEO, or aggressively sought-after, or it’s clear that the top (say) 20 Google results are all backed by explicit and determined SEO work.
But there’s another category of “term” that I’m really concerned about, where bloggers like you and me have a significant and rarely talked about onus of responsibility. These are the terms where someone out their is deserving of a link, because they either deserve to “own” that term in the SERPs, or they have added something significant to the meaning or development of that terms or subject-matter.
Here are some examples of what I’m talking about:
- social media optimization
Rohit Bhargava is rightly credited with coining this term and promoting its use aggressively. So he deserves (I think) the first position in Google, as indeed I think he deserves the link when you and I write this term into a blog post and want to link to somewhere for it. And sure enough, Google gives him that first place of honour. Yay. - asset based community development
This is an approach to community development made popular by a couple of guys at Northwestern… and sure enough Google honours them with first position. Yay again. - email spam
First result here goes to Wikipedia. Is that because no-one “owns” that term, so we should default to the Wikipedia entry? Personally, I think the spam.abuse.net site probably deserves more recognition than its current 5th positition. It’s has massive pedigree, age, authority in the industry, etc. - identity theft
The US Government has the first position on this keyword phrase, an impressively accomplished attorney called Mari Frank has second position and Wikipedia comes in third. My guess is Wikipedia is on the rise here, as it is in most places. - wearable computer
There are a number of university “labs” dedicated to this subject, most notably MIT’s, and yet Wikipedia holds first position on this term. MIT comes in third at the moment.
OK, so here’s my issue, and it’s to do with the way I suspect most bloggers write posts — not all, just most, including yours truly…
We know it’s good blogging practice to apply links to key terms and phrases we use; we thus enrich our posts with links to content that help the uninformed reader dig deeper… it’s just a good and nice thing to do. But my fear is that as Wikipedia entries “rise to the top” of Google rankings (in particular), bloggers will link to those pages more and more, over and against other, perhaps more deserving pages, because we tend to go for the first result of a Google search when we go looking for someone to link to.
I want to suggest this may be a) laziness and b) ripping off a more deserving (than Wikipedia) website of a link.
My request and challenge is therefore this: in your blogging, as you come across the need for external links to this and that issue/subject/term, please think carefully that you are at that moment making an IMPORTANT decision… you’re ultimately determine the search rankings for those keywords in the search engines! Yes you are!
So please STOP “defaulting” to a Wikipedia entry just because, either:
- you can’t be bothered finding out who else is richly deserving of that link; or
- your habit of finding a link is to grab whatever Google lists at Number One (too often Wikipedia, in my opinion).
As an important aside, I think this “defaulting” to Wikipedia is the world’s most brilliant SEO strategy ever, and I just don’t think it’s deserving of it (that’s a whole other story).
Meanwhile, if you come across Google search results that you think enfairly favour Wikipedia over against a more deserving website or blog, leave a comment linking to that search on Google. Maybe they’ll come over here and have a look 
41 Comments
you were wondering... I believe in rewarding commenters!
As much as it hurts me to link to Wikipedia, a resource that plagiarizes a huge amount of information and unfairly (although for understandable reasons) “nofollows” backlinks, I still continue do so. Their urls stay the same while most other websites do not think twice before changing all of their urls during redesigns.
I don’t know about that (above comment) – some pages change over time but I for one use permalinks to avoid that. Moreover, I think Alister has a point here: Wikipedia article aren’t always right, and they change over time as well so what you were linking to there could shift just like any other site. Plus: why not link somewhere else? Find another reliable source and give them some credit, spread the love around – Wikipedia will still continue to rank well for lots of things, no harm done.
I only link to wiki as a last resort for the very reasons stated above. But it is oh so tempting to just say, bugger it, that’ll do.
Glad to see I’m not the only one who’s wondered about this!
I couldn’t agree with you more. And like you, I used to do the same thing. But when you come across so many posts on the Web that have words like SEO or Social Media – even common language words or terms that have been around for years – linking to Wikipedia, it make me question whether the post was researched at all, as well as the intensions of the author.
Solution: link to Gino
A lot of bloggers have commented on Wikipedia not being so accurate, but your article is the first one that has made me want to make sure that I seek out links to folks who have “earned” a link by their authority on a particular subject.
Just a question, when you say “I think this “defaulting” to Wikipedia is the world’s most brilliant SEO strategy ever,” who crafted that strategy? Seems like it stems from the collective “laziness” of us all that creates this phenomenon. So is it really more like an SEO “accident” rather than “Strategy?”
Best regards,
Sully
Sully, I suppose it may not have been strategic… it depends. But it’s at least possible that the Wikipedia guys thought ahead to the time when people would link in this way…
Of course if they ever tun ads on there they’ll get in trouble with Google, as (I assume) did answers.com, who are not at all in the SERPs like they used to be…
-Alister
thanks for the response!
I’ll admit that I’ve referenced Wikipedia a number of times – and referred many of my friends & colleagues there too – but not for laziness sake. Wikipedia initially served as a convenient starting point when researching topics.
Now mind you, I’ve never just taken the content there at face value – I validate (and sometimes debunk) those findings via Google or other reference site searches.
But as my prowess with search engines has grown, my reliance upon Wikipedia has faded considerably.
Excellent perspective and a well-written round-up!
This is a good point, Alister. One issue I have with trying to be “good” in this sense is that I don’t always know the source of a particular idea. Sometimes Wikipedia will tell me, and I will give the link love to the original source. But other times, I am either too lazy to chase down the source or the Wikipedia article is good enough for the situation at hand.
Could there be some nuance to your suggestion?
Alister
A nicely written polemic but I for one do not share your anti-Wikipedia views. I often link to Wikipedia because I’ve gone there first rather than wade through lots of junk on Google or Yahoo to get what I want. Usually I am just wanting a link to explain a term that might be very familiar to the blognoscenti but not to others. So in that example, my linking to Wikipedia is not lazy but ethical. The other challenge I have with your polemic/campaign is that it pays no credit to the work done by people who contribute from their knowledge, in good faith, to Wikipedia. And if I can find a more primary source I credit/link to that, sometimes “via” Wikipedia.
Excellent post Alister – I’ve refused to link to Wikipedia for quite a while now, and it’s good to see someone else calling out this practice of linking to Wikipedia for everything.
It’s not healthy for the web to have so many large media websites (Wikipedia, YouTube, etc) showing up for such basic search terms. Over time, the top ten results for virtually any search will come to be dominated by the major sites, leaving out the quality content written by smaller but nonetheless relevant websites.
I’ve read that there’s a pluging for WordPress that automatically nofollows any links to Wikipedia in your posts, so if you’re insistent on linking to the ‘pedia, but value the rest of the internet, that might be one to use.
111 diggs this morning. I just Stumbled this post as well.
I’ve just started a fledgling weblog and I linked to a load of wikipedia articles for easy definitions. Inspired by your article I’ve just gone and changed many (not all) of the links to other places.
I have an article on DRM for example which I originally linked to wikipedia but taking a fresh look I decided the EFF was a much more deserving place to get the link.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wikipedia per se, for example their article on the Cathode Ray Tube that I link to is excellent, I couldn’t find a better one. However I think you’re right generally. They don’t need the links as virtually everyone links to them for definitions. Time to give someone else a chance.
Sounds like Wibbly is in the same boat I was in. Wikipedia is a sometimes the most readily available reference source. But as you persue better blogging – and surfing skills, in general – you discover how to dig up better, more qualified references. It’s a learning curve.
But this post has made me more mindful of this tendancy to use Wikipedia for convenience sake and I’ve also been reworking some of my older posts to redirect my links to more deserving and substantive sites. Thanks again, Alister!
Social responsible linking. Now I have guilt about linking. Man it’s a tough world some days cause I have to admit I am guilty of lazy linking. Until this post I didn’t know it had a name, but now I am locked in the room with an 800 pound gorilla and I can’t get out. I guess now I will have to be more diligent about the process. But, it’s hard I tell you…it’s hard. I mean there it is, the Google results staring me in the face. I didn’t want to, I mean it’s just one little link right. Who’s to know…oh the shame….but I will mend my ways and walk a straighter line down a path less traveled for you have brought light into a darkened room and now…now I know the difference. Thanks, now I have link guilt. Maybe there’s a patch.
So true, and of course its a vicious never ending circle with Wikipedia growing thousands of links by the day. I will certainly think twice before linking to Wikipedia again…
I provide links in my blog posts only if strictly necessary (I’d rather have people reading my post than venturing off to other websites), but I have linked to Wikipedia a few times. My main motivation in doing this is that I’ve found, more often than not, that Wikipedia provides a rather well-rounded and easily accessible definition or explanation of things. Sure, I could send someone to an authoritative site for an explanation of something, but I doubt they explain what that something is in the very first sentence, as Wikipedia does.
I don’t use Wikipedia as a reference, and I certainly don’t see it as uber-reliable and accurate above all other sources, but it is a good source for figuring out, at a glance, what something is.
Wikipedia is my favorite resourse in many ways! Among simple and meaningful definitions, it is possible to cover most topics with relevant keywords which is very important for SEO. Wiki is free and supports many useful things. I link to Wikipedia sometimes when my topic really needs it but it’s not the ongoing practice. However I agree that Wikipedia collects too many external links daily, and give it many links is not wise
This seems to be a touching subject all around. they get tons of links but never gives back because they don’t follow. many people work hard for a link from them and they just decide to nofollow everything. if your going to link to them from your blog you should use the wikipedia nofollow plugin.
you can get it here http://whatjapanthinks.com/wikipedia-nofollow/
please support the the case to stop them form taking over the internet when other site deserve the spot!
Never really gave it much thought to link to Wikipedia articles in my posts. You have made some very good points though, so will certainly be more thoughtful now of it. Especially since I’m trying to rank on other terms too which Wikipedia is a ranking factor…
I’ve done it in the past, but since I realized that wikipedia is a major enemy of mine in the SERPs, I stopped
Something curious about the dating of the trackbacks showing up here – all as 7 years, 9 months ago. Dr Who at work?
Wikipedia is a great resource for linking to a term or thing that you are not taking the time to explain because it’s assumed most readers can follow. You still give someone who doesn’t know a chance to learn and then follow the article.
One major reason I reference Wikipedia is due to the fact that I can count on the link being active in years to come……There’s nothing more annoying than having to deal with rotten links or pages whose content changed…..
But I agree, I am not helping deserving sites…
It is annoying to see wikipedia outrank your site on just about every term. I did want to point out that you didn’t link to any of the sites you thought should rank, but you did link to the wikipedia yourself. I thought this was funny.
I think that this Google/Yahoo/MSN ‘nofollow’ initiative in cooperation with Typepad, Blogger, YouTube and other major social platforms is one of the worst things going on on the internet. Wikipedia is definitely one of the best sites out there, but it does not deserve to be on top for every other search query.
Default ‘nofollow’ use on most major user build websites in combination with increased use of these sites results in their huge PageRank (and SERP) boost. This is enormously helped with the use of social bookmarking buttons. I suggest everyone to use Andy’s ‘Antisocial’ plugin for WordPress, and similar if any for other platforms.
I write more about this at several places, but here is the main one with more links:
http://seolutions.net/blog/nofollow-monstrosity
Another thing:
How arrogant is this, StumbleUpon not only ‘trusts’ sites its users bookmark, but it does not trust users homepages, you know, that one tiny link that 2 million users have on their stumble profile page. They are so possessive with their PageRank.
Same is with YouTube, which is in a way even worse, because YouTube users really invest effort, thought, creativity, time, sometimes money, to make those home videos, and post them, and YouTube doesn’t even honor them with a ‘trust’ link to their homepage, but puts nofollow even on that one link.
And almost all other major big sites are the same.
I was (and still am) so furious about this that I made a nofollow-reciprocity plugin:
http://www.inverudio.com/programs/WordPressBlog/NofollowReciprocity.php
It will put nofollow on all links in your blog to these sites, like that one to Wikipedia that you have in your post.
I made few grammar mistakes above:
StumbleUpon not only ‘trusts’ -> StumbleUpon not only does not ‘trusts’
‘It will put on all links’ -> ‘It will put nofollow on all links’
OK, it’s an old post, but I wouldn’t have got to to your site if it wasn’t for Wikipedia (in a roundabout Steve Blass sort of way)
Cheers,
Joe
Good point. I must say that I am a little disappointed by all those Wikipedia pages… I mean, there is almost no chance that you get ranked higher – which is sad if you ask me.
good debate
I’m in full agreement with you there. Why link to Wikipedia? They don’t need any links – plenty of others have gone through the trouble of spending a lot of time thoughtfully researching and creating great relevant content that deserves exposure.
I link to Wikipedia, because when I try to find an answer for something I also use Wikipedia as one of my first choices… lazy or not. Once being at Wikipedia and wanting deeper info, it provides at least some links to get started with a research. Furthermore Wikipedia links are stable… what else do we want? Do we want to satisfy egos (showing off the capacity to deliver better info than Wikipedia) or do we want to deliver a quick info to a term amidst a story? Wikipedia is sophisticated enough to get a first idea and superficial enough not to get trapped there… so it is a great companion to keep the own info short, fluent and familiar (because no term explanations inside the story), provide a quick and solid solution for the readers without 5 PhDs not to lose interest because of missing a term and if it is good for SEO also – even better… life is complicate enough, let’s keep simple things just simple… btw. to be lazy is actually a good attitude, because it is the origin of many inventions…. why should we need a car if we can walk? Lazyness? Well Wikipedia is a kind of car for information… why to walk through all the search results to find somebody better…. and … how many sites are (at the end of the day) really better in a compact and short description of a term, a person or whatever?
This problem has actually been getting worse and worse. While Wikipedia is a great resource, the epidemic of Wikipedia number one rankings has grown out of hand. Some of the rankings and information held on these Wiki pages are ridiculous and would be much better when given to sites who’s content is far more merited based on its authoritative content rather than what is an undeserved backlink profile.
Wikipedia is often deserving of a link. Information is only as good as the way it’s presented, and I must say that too many websites are horridly laid out. I would link to wikipedia purely because of it’s efficient layout. ie it’s easy to read, and you are guaranteed not to be bombarded by ads, invitations to join the site, flash animations, pop-ups and other annoyances. If everyone who had something to say chose to display their information in an easy to read or standardised manner, perhaps then they would be more deserving of a link. Wikipedia is just too reliable for those who want their information right in their face.
Otherwise I tend to agree with what you have said.
First of all, I love your site. Very nice.
I find it weird that everyone seems to agree with you on this issue, though. I find myself unconvinced. I honestly don’t give a hoot about being “fair” to certain web sites or that Wikipedia is being ranked “too high.”
Wikipedia gets ranked high for a reason. The articles usually have good accuracy (it depends on the profile of the article, but I can confirm the math and science articles tend to be quite good), they are well laid-out, they give a succinct overview of the topic, and they provide external links and references to learn more. I like finding Wikipedia articles at the top of my searches. Yes you have to take what you read with a grain of salt, but that applies to all sources. Knowing the credentials of a particular writer is historically a highly imperfect defence against wrong information.
I found your blog while doing some research to try and make a middleware for my Django blog to automate making links to Wikipedia – so I’m firmly on the dark side
. Of course, absolutely nobody reads my blog so maybe I should care after all lol.
Wikipedia ranks for some insane terms with very sub par content. Although there is definitely some very solid content on Wikipedia, there is no reason to feed this beast that everyone has decided is God of information. They are like Google in this regard – People believe that they are the all knowing heart of the web, when they simply throw up crap and call it gold now that they have an insanely powerful brand. /rant
I think some of Wikipedia is good. I will never forget though the one time I took the time to apply as an editor and learn how to add to pages. I have a doctorate degree, years of work experience and some fairly specific knowledge in certain areas, so I thought here’s a page that I can… not really so much correct but clarify a great deal by adding just a couple of sentences. It took me a bit to learn to do this edit, and I felt good having given something back. The next day I looked at the page while logged in and saw the previous editor of the page undid all of it. I went to the editor profile and saw what looked like a young kid sitting in a dorm room with a lot of stuffed toys on the dorm room bed in the editor profile picture. I won’t waste my time again. Wikipedia is just as good as the editors of the page you land on. Maybe good enough, maybe not. I guess accuracy is in the eye of the beholder.
Good post. Totally agree with you. I never link to them.
Linking to Wikipedia is a good choice, when you put your readers first, because Wikipedia is easy to read, in a format consistent across ALL of its pages, doesn’t have annoying ads, and (as someone said) its links never change.
I could go on and on about the reliability of Wikipedia being greater than what most people think. It has moderators, vandalism is removed almost instantly for most articles, and some common sense will tell you that moose do not “breathe fire” as you’re skimming the article about the Moose. The important information in an article always cites its source, or else a note is placed that asks for a source.
16 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Posted -1928 years ago
Posted -1928 years ago
Posted -1928 years ago
Posted -1928 years ago
Posted -1928 years ago
Posted -1928 years ago
Posted -1928 years ago
Posted -1928 years ago
Posted -1928 years ago
Posted 5 years, 8 months ago
[...] Cameron writes that Linking to Wikipedia is lazy and a disservice to someone else who really deserves the link!. I often link to Wikipedia but have lots of links to other blogs and sites too. Last 5 posts in [...]
Posted 4 years, 6 months ago
[...] rarely link to Wikipedia, especially ever since I read Alister Cameron’s arguments. The article gives some common sense advice, that I really think you should read at some [...]
Posted 4 years ago
Posted 4 years ago
Posted 3 years, 9 months ago
Posted 3 years, 7 months ago
[...] Linking to Wikipedia [...]
Posted 2 years, 10 months ago
[...] good reasons to stop linking to Wikipedia as much. I grudgingly (because it’s more work for me) agree with his reasoning on the matter. [...]
Post a Comment