3 ms·

I would need to read the paper to be sure, but from what I gathered a simpler SEO explanation hasn't been given. With the Snowden leaks each and every media ou

I would need to read the paper to be sure, but from what I gathered a simpler SEO explanation hasn't been given. With the Snowden leaks each and every media outlet started publishing reports on those topic. That means that the Google SERPs of relevant keywords started to be clogged by relevant articles and editorial contents that displaced Wikipedia entries from the first positions. I've done my share of editorial SEO stuff during the last few years and I've seen that happen many times for even smaller events. A more meaningful way of testing this would have been to have a similar sampling of entries from another topic to test against the key group. Maybe that's in the paper, we'll see when it's out. Still, the numbers are consistent with the fluctuation of positioning in Google results.

vanderZwan 11y ago
That's a good point, although to nuance it a bit: > suggesting that concerns about government snooping are hurting the ordinary pursuit of information ... while they might be wrong about the cause (which is important of course), you could argue that the consequence remains the same; that depends on whether the articles and editorial are good replacements content-wise.
- camillomiller 11y ago
  Well, in that case we could also discuss whether Wikipedia could be considered the best information you can read. Also, would Wikipedia be as updated as, say, an investigative report about NSA misconduct published by the New Yorker? I mean, the absolute value of the medium has not been taken into account nor weighted in the study. Editorial worthiness is certainly something we can talk about, but I wouldn't consider it as a meaningful replacement for the lack of a statistically and numerically relevant point in the study.
  - vanderZwan 11y ago
    Agreed on all points; I guess my point was that while flawed, the study at least highlights that traffic dropped to Wiki articles, and triggers this whole discussion.

vanderZwan 11y ago

That's a good point, although to nuance it a bit: > suggesting that concerns about government snooping are hurting the ordinary pursuit of information ... while they might be wrong about the cause (which is important of course), you could argue that the consequence remains the same; that depends on whether the articles and editorial are good replacements content-wise.

camillomiller 11y ago
Well, in that case we could also discuss whether Wikipedia could be considered the best information you can read. Also, would Wikipedia be as updated as, say, an investigative report about NSA misconduct published by the New Yorker? I mean, the absolute value of the medium has not been taken into account nor weighted in the study. Editorial worthiness is certainly something we can talk about, but I wouldn't consider it as a meaningful replacement for the lack of a statistically and numerically relevant point in the study.
- vanderZwan 11y ago
  Agreed on all points; I guess my point was that while flawed, the study at least highlights that traffic dropped to Wiki articles, and triggers this whole discussion.