• http://www.jehochman.com JEHochman

    On behalf of the “rabid Wikipedians,” I need to clarify several points raised by this article.

    1. Having friends available if your article is nominated for deletion doesn’t mean recruiting a bunch of shills to “vote” for your article. That’s called meat puppetry, and is a violation of community rules. That strategy is sure to backfire, badly.

    2. Using Wikipedia to build links completely misses the point. Please don’t be so narrow minded that you can’t think of any other marketing strategy besides links and rankings. Wikipedia is a powerful social media for educating the public, and interacting with your audience. Comedy Central never drops links in Wikipedia. Instead, they support those who generate content for Wikipedia about Comedy Central properties, such as South Park. What can you do? If you are notable and already have a Wikipedia article, leave a message on the talk page and offer to answer questions and point out reference materials that Wikipedians can use to improve your article. Put a list on your website with your news appearances. That sort of above board, sincere participation can create benefits.

    3. If you are notable, you need to monitor your Wikipedia presence and make sure your pages aren’t being vandalized or spun by somebody with a biased agenda. Take complaints to the article talk page, or contact Wikipedia for help.

    4. If you’re not notable, you can’t and shouldn’t even try to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. You can participate in articles related to your field, make friends, and sharpen your expertise. The best way to get into Wikipedia is to become notable by doing something noteworthy.

    5. Wikipedia is unlikely to kill Google. Have you ever used Wikipedia’s internal search function? It’s not very good. I use Google to search for Wikipedia content. After consulting Wikipedia to learn the basics about a topic, I often need Google to search for deeper information. Wikipedia and Google go together like milk and cookies.

  • http://www.saraholoubek.com sarasez

    Completely agree on all points.

  • http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/ David Gerard

    JEHochman’s pretty much right here. One of the Wikipedia administrators, Durova, has a useful essay called The Dark Side. Precis: every trick you can think of, every way you can think of, to use Wikipedia for a purpose other than the good of the Wikipedia project itself – and however you justify it to yourself, as you just did reading that last phrase – (a) has been done before, over and over and over; (b) will attach itself to your name and your client’s name forever. In a bad way. “If you’re getting ideas to bend Wikipedia for your own purposes then you are almost certainly devising plots that I have read many times before.”

    There are all sorts of good reasons to contribute to Wikipedia. It’s important to understand that marketing is not considered one of them, and many editors will react very negatively indeed. Note the cautionary examples in the essay above.

  • http://www.seo-theory.com/ Michael Martinez

    There are still plenty of queries where you don’t see Ickipedia show up and even when it does show up it’s not THAT hard to get above it.

  • http://www.luckylester.com Lucky Lester

    I wonder how long it will be before someone “notable” files a slander or defamation claim against Wikipedia because of some “freely” edited article within their system?

    I wonder how long it will be before someone “notable” files a slander or defamation claim against Wikipedia because of some “freely” edited article within their system?

    Some noteworthy person I know was “outed” in Wikipedia. Another person had material posted on the site that was patently misleading and now must spend their time policing the page.

    When I finally grow up and become noteworthy as the “World’s Biggest Asshole” and somebody chronicles this in Wikipedia – boy oh boy nobody better come along and slander me by referring to me as a nice guy cause I gots to tell ya… da fecal matter is gunna fly!