3 ms·

Whoa! This is either absurdly misinformed or just a troll. It's not WikiPEDIA (the encyclopedia) selling LINKS it's WikiMEDIA, the parent organisation selling c

Whoa! This is either absurdly misinformed or just a troll. It's not WikiPEDIA (the encyclopedia) selling LINKS it's WikiMEDIA, the parent organisation selling corporate SPONORSHIPS (which happen to include a link, as one would expect.) Sheesh. Flagged

zone411 15y ago
Wikipedia is the flagship project of Wikimedia. I think you're nitpicking if you think there is much of a distinction on where the links are appearing.
- wccrawford 15y ago
  The links are not on Wikipedia's page. They're on Wikimedia's. It's a huge difference because the focus of each site is different, no matter that they're both owned by the same company.
  - zone411 15y ago
    Because of how PageRank works, no, there is no real difference at all. Wikipedia's homepage and many other pages link to Wikimedia and that's how it gets its high page rank and that's why it can sell the links this way. Other links on Wikipedia are all no-follow. This is the same organization and in terms of PageRank algorithm there is no distinction. If you create a link to any Wikipedia page, it makes the Wikimedia page in question become more valuable in the eyes of Google and that's why buying the links there is worth the price.
    - iamdave 15y ago
      If that were the case, why is it when I look up "Page rank", wikiPedia is the first result and not wikiMedia?
      - zone411 15y ago
        There is no unique page about "page rank" on Wikimedia's site, so search engines that would return it as a result would be doing something very wrong. Try "job openings" in Google. I see Wikimedia as #7 in the search results, right after huge websites devoted just to jobs. Do you think it got there on its own merits and it should be there instead of, let's say, Walmart's job page? No, that is all outside links to Wikipedia giving it its high ranking.
- GiraffeNecktie 15y ago
  Good grief. One site is for CONTENT and the other is for FUNDRAISING and other related activities of the non-profit organization. That's an awfully big nit.
  - zone411 15y ago
    Please read about how PageRank works. There is no distinction whatsoever about why they are able to sell links on that page (because of all outside links to Wikipedia) and no distinction about who the money goes to (Wikimedia). There is no substantive difference at all.
    - GiraffeNecktie 15y ago
      No substantive difference? They are different sites, with different domain names. The fact that they are related and have a lot of common links is utterly irrelevant. Sure Wikimedia has an oddly high pagerank due to ties with Wikipedia but that's just a quirk of Google's algorithm (and lucky for Wikimedia when selling sponsorships) but so what? I don't see your point.
      - zone411 15y ago
        The point is that Wikimedia is blatantly breaking Google's spam guidelines. Whether they sell links on Wikipedia or Wikimedia domains makes little difference as to their effectiveness in improving spammers' rankings in the search engines. It is not "lucky" for Wikimedia. It is an exploitation of Wikipedia's power and as the cited email shows, they know it.

zone411 15y ago

Wikipedia is the flagship project of Wikimedia. I think you're nitpicking if you think there is much of a distinction on where the links are appearing.

wccrawford 15y ago
The links are not on Wikipedia's page. They're on Wikimedia's. It's a huge difference because the focus of each site is different, no matter that they're both owned by the same company.
- zone411 15y ago
  Because of how PageRank works, no, there is no real difference at all. Wikipedia's homepage and many other pages link to Wikimedia and that's how it gets its high page rank and that's why it can sell the links this way. Other links on Wikipedia are all no-follow. This is the same organization and in terms of PageRank algorithm there is no distinction. If you create a link to any Wikipedia page, it makes the Wikimedia page in question become more valuable in the eyes of Google and that's why buying the links there is worth the price.
  - iamdave 15y ago
    If that were the case, why is it when I look up "Page rank", wikiPedia is the first result and not wikiMedia?
    - zone411 15y ago
      There is no unique page about "page rank" on Wikimedia's site, so search engines that would return it as a result would be doing something very wrong. Try "job openings" in Google. I see Wikimedia as #7 in the search results, right after huge websites devoted just to jobs. Do you think it got there on its own merits and it should be there instead of, let's say, Walmart's job page? No, that is all outside links to Wikipedia giving it its high ranking.
GiraffeNecktie 15y ago
Good grief. One site is for CONTENT and the other is for FUNDRAISING and other related activities of the non-profit organization. That's an awfully big nit.
- zone411 15y ago
  Please read about how PageRank works. There is no distinction whatsoever about why they are able to sell links on that page (because of all outside links to Wikipedia) and no distinction about who the money goes to (Wikimedia). There is no substantive difference at all.
  - GiraffeNecktie 15y ago
    No substantive difference? They are different sites, with different domain names. The fact that they are related and have a lot of common links is utterly irrelevant. Sure Wikimedia has an oddly high pagerank due to ties with Wikipedia but that's just a quirk of Google's algorithm (and lucky for Wikimedia when selling sponsorships) but so what? I don't see your point.
    - zone411 15y ago
      The point is that Wikimedia is blatantly breaking Google's spam guidelines. Whether they sell links on Wikipedia or Wikimedia domains makes little difference as to their effectiveness in improving spammers' rankings in the search engines. It is not "lucky" for Wikimedia. It is an exploitation of Wikipedia's power and as the cited email shows, they know it.