Heated Point / Counterpoint Debate on Wikipedia NoFollow Attribute
|
Written By Kate Zimmermann | January 22, 2007 | Share This
|
|
Over the weekend, Wikipedia added rel=”nofollow” tags to all outgoing links to help eliminate link spam. For SEOs, the NoFollow attribute will prevent highly-authoritative Wikipedia links from contributing to a site’s organic search engine ranking. As Search Engine Journal writes, “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.” Wikipedia’s actions have sparked a heated debate on the pros and cons of counting Wikipedia’s external links. To help present the issues in the most fair and only slightly biased manner, Searchviews Presents:
POINT / COUNTERPOINT: The Right Decision vs. The Lose/Lose Situation
Point: “Wikipedia Finally Made the Right Decision”
As Rand Fishkin writes, “Since anyone can add them, Wikipedia is practically the definition of where nofollow should be instituted.” Instituting NoFollow is not only going to help cut down on Wikipedia linkbaiting, it’ll contribute to the quality of Wikipedia results. Furthermore, Wikipedia’s actions indicate a fundamental problem with search engine algorithms - this will force search engines to come up with new indicators of relevance other than external links, which are highly susceptible to spam.
- Point One: NoFollow Tags Improve Wikipedia’s Link, and Overall Site, Quality
By making external links only as valuable (to marketers) as their traffic generated, links will be more qualified. Pages with significant amounts of traffic also undergo a significant amount of editing - thus, non-relevant outgoing links on highly trafficked pages are quickly removed by the Wikipedia community. For pages that undergo low editing, on the other hand, the time spent adding and monitoring links may outweigh the traffic benefits - thus there’s little incentive to add link spam. In other words, NoFollow tags make it difficult for spammers to reap any benefit from link-baiting Wikipedia. As a result, NoFollow tags improve the overall quality of Wikipedia contents. - Point Two: NoFollow Tags Force Search Engines to Improve Their Algorithms
By adding NoFollow to external links, Wikipedia is challenging the search engines to come up with other solutions to determine what links are trustworthy, and which are not. Links should theoretically exist for the user, as pathways to relevant content. When the search engines professed that external links weighed heavily into their search algorithm, however, they gave links with a new purpose - links were established as beneficial to site publishers, not users. This is the basis for all link spam, not the practice of linking itself. Thus, Wikipedia is not only cleaning up their own spam problem, they’re emphasizing that not all links are created equal, and search engines need a new methodology for separating authoritative content from spam.
In Support of Wikipedia’s NO FOLLOW:
- All Wikipedia Links are now NOFOLLOW (Search Engine Journal)
- Wikipedia Finally Makes the Right Decision (SEOMoz)
- Does It Matter That Wikipedia Made its Links NoFollow? (Search Marketing Gurus)
- Outbound Links in English Wikipedia Now Nofollow As Well (JoostdeValk.nl)
Counterpoint: “Wikipedia Just Threw The Baby Out With the Bathwater”
Wikipedia is a community-built site that enjoys high organic ranking because of the inbound links created by its community members. Furthermore, as a highly authoritative site, search engines rely on Wikipedia’s references to assess the relevancy of other sites on the web. By removing itself as an information hub (in the eyes of the search engine) Wikipedia will not only hurt other sites, but it will hurt its own organic rankings. Finally, its dubious whether or not implementing NoFollow will significantly reduce the number of marketers “spamming” Wikipedia.
- Counterpoint One: Wikipedia is Stealing from the Community
By refusing to share link equity with people who gave Wikipedia stature in the first place, it’s alienating the very community that determines its relevance. Though it may deter spam, it’s also hurting legitimately relevant sites. True, not all links are created equal, but Wikipedia already has a highly-effective editing process in place. Adding NoFollow tags not only challenges the trustworthiness of Wikipedia’s community editors, it deters community members from linking their own sites to Wikipedia. The tone in Marketing Pilgrim’s response post communicates this antagonism, “So, in response, any future links to Wikipedia from us, will include a NoFollow. Maybe if we all take that approach, Wikipedia will lose its PageRank and won’t have to worry about link-spam any longer.” - Counterpoint Two: Wikipedia is Hurting Search Engine Results in General
Search Engines depend on highly authoritative sites like Wikipedia to inform them of other relevant sites. Functions like Google’s “similar pages” are now rendered ineffective. - Counterpoint Three: Wikipedia is Hurting its Own Results
Previously, Wikipedia was considered both an authority and a hub by search engines - people went there for information, and it likewise informed search engines about relevant external sites. Now that external links (and related sites) are no longer visible to search engines, Wikipedia will lose its relevance as a hub. Furthermore, disgruntled site publishers who are unhappy with Wikipedia’s implementation of NoFollow will cease linking to Wikipedia, thus further hurting Wikipedia’s relevance. In sum, by hiding all external links from the search spiders, Wikipedia is essentially declaring itself the ultimate authority on all subjects - in the eyes of the search engine, this is false, and will likely have negative consequences on Wikipedia’s page rank. - Counterpoint Four: No Follows won’t significantly reduce Wikipedia spam
As one user writes, “Nofollow doesn’t have a huge impact on spam. Some spammers have western type return on effort criteria. Others do not: they live in China with a tiny income and are happy with an incredibly low success rate…I do not buy spam is getting worse. The key parameter for me is how long it lasts on average…spam isn’t growing faster than our ability to deal with it.” Adding NoFollow only addresses one of many reasons for spammers to get their URLs on Wikipedia - it’s a “kneejerk reaction to a non-existant problem”. - Wikipedia NoFollow Plugin? WIkiDigg? (Andy Beard)
- Wikipedia Shouldn’t Follow NoFollow (Ross Mayfield)
- Wikipedia No Longer Passing Page Rank (Marketing Pilgrim)
- Wikipedia Must Rollback the Rel=NoFollow Change (Digital Inspiration)
- Has Wikipedia Gone No Follow? (BP Wrap)
- The Link of Least Resistance
- Add the NOFOLLOW Attribute to Your Wikipedia Links (Conversion Rater)
Opposed to NoFollow:
Topics: Wikipedia |
Hi Kate,
Nice job, but incomplete
, if you want to add counter arguments to each of those arguments and then some more, go and check out the 3 discussions I referred to in my post at SEJ.
I don’t know if you read them, but believe that they would make a nice and detailed post like yours but much more in-depth, because I believe they cover everything there is to the subject.
All the 100+ digg comments and 50+ blog posts and comments did not add anything new to the discussion, that was already discussed and addressed in the two discussions at Wikipedia and the the one discussion I consolidated from various Wikipedia discussions last spring and added as scrap to my site as reference.
I was thinking about hiring an editor to get it all sorted and structured, but then I saw your post …
Would you be up to it?!
Cheers
Carsten
Hi Kate
Thanks for the mention, it is a fairly comprehensive roundup.
One aspect you are missing is duplicate content and ethical attribution, not only in the eyes of users, but also the search engines.
What can also happen is that Wikipedia will cite and nofollow link to the original source, but hundreds of sites will cite wikipedia, without mentioning the original author.
I have written another short piece on that as it seems to be something being overlooked in a lot of the reporting.