3 ms·
It's not that Wikipedia is necessarily high quality, it's that users want to see relevant Wikipedia articles near the tops of their searches. It's a really usef
by edsrzf 16y ago
It's not that Wikipedia is necessarily high quality, it's that users want to see relevant Wikipedia articles near the tops of their searches. It's a really useful starting point for a wide variety of searches.
- zone411 16y agoYou might say the say thing about many other content farms. That's their whole purpose: to appear good enough for people who are not very familiar with the topic. Google specifically said that the goal of their update was to penalize "low-quality sites—sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites" (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/finding-more-high-quality-sites-in.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/finding-more-high-qua...). As I said, Wikipedia did exactly this. Thousands of times for just this one site. Providing links on the bottom to where they copied their content from is not a high-value add. This update punished my high quality site and helped Wikipedia.