• http://www.bessed.com AdamJusko

    It would be interesting to see if Wikipedia has enough of a “brand” now to hold up on its own if it didn’t so well in the search engines, especially Google. I don’t know if it would, but it really doesn’t have to worry, because for so many searches, Wikipedia does offer the best overview of a topic.

    That said, Google gives Wikipedia a lot of credit as a trusted site and gives it high rankings even for Wikipedia pages that are crappy and uninformative. The whole “trusted site” thing is where Google has a weakness—even if a site is trusted, that doesn’t mean that every page it publishes is genius.

  • http://weblogs.hitwise.com/leeann-prescott/2007/02/wikipedia_traffic_sources.html LeeAnn Prescott

    Correction on the second bullet point:
    70% of Wikipedia’s total traffic came from search engines, 50% of total traffic from Google, so Google was responsible for 71% of Wikipedia’s search engine visits.

  • http://vlib.iue.it/history/search/ W3 Search

    One thought — I am certain that wiki results went up as soon as they added “nofollow” commands to every off-site link. In many non-commercial searches, say history related, wiki results went up from 7th to 3rd or from 5th to 1st, etc., in google. It is sad that wiki’s answer to their spam link problems was to destroy their editors’ rights to add good sites in a way that helped the sites.