Comments on: Search Engine Marketing (& Search Engine Land) Not Notable For Wikipedia?

By: Kimber Cook

Kimber Cook — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:01:26 +0000

i know i’m late to the party, but…
“Maybe we need to listen to Jason Calacanis a little bit, because he’s obviously doing something right.”
OUCH!!!

By: JEHochman

JEHochman — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:08:06 +0000

@Neuro: You can cite offline sources. Maybe you can convince somebody to put that report online for the sake of future generations who may want to study the topic.

@SEO Woman: Oh c’mon, don’t exaggerate. I haven’t been banned for life, yet. ;-)

By: SEO Woman

SEO Woman — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:38:45 +0000

“SEMs are partly to blame because aside from Carsten and Bill, I haven’t seen anyone helping us maintain the articles within the Internet marketing space.”

You have got to be kidding me. It’s abundantly clear that Wikipedians think we’re one step up from pond scum, but we’re supposed to help out? And while I’m helping, perhaps I could flog myself while they call me a reprehensible weasel. Then when I’m done, they can revert all my edits and ban me for life.

Yeah, I’ll get right on that.

By: Neuro

Neuro — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:51:06 +0000

JEHochman “Recognize that Wikipedia doesn’t allow original research”

Where you reponding to my comment?

The origional source for my orgaisation was a pre ww2 report by the carniege foundation thats not going to be online is it.

By: Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:36:04 +0000

“Recognize that Wikipedia doesn’t allow original research…”

That is the biggest lie about Wikipedia. It is almost nothing BUT original research and not very good research in most cases. Nor is it an encyclopedia (Cf. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aencyclopedia).

Wikipedia is a Web site built from original research that is not peer-reviewed or subjected to any standardized fact-checking. It is not deemed acceptable as a citation source by many educators (Cf. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wikipedia+is+not+acceptable%22+site%3A*.edu).

Frankly, no one should really care what Wikipedia does regardless of where it places in the SERPs. It would be better to continue to educate the people who obsess about Wikipedia over just how much it lacks credibility (Cf. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wikipedia+is+not+a+credible%22+site%3A*.edu).

By: JEHochman

JEHochman — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:02:44 +0000

Recognize that Wikipedia doesn’t allow original research, which is what you are posting. If you fail to cite reliable, published sources that talk about the subject, your article should be deleted.

By: Neuro

Neuro — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:05:10 +0000

It amzes me that a lot of articles are deleted by people who know nothing about the subject area.

I have been trying to create a page for 18 Plus its a UK organisation similar to rotaract (youth wing of rotary) or young framers.

And the page keeps geting deleted first time by a yank second time by a german user.

FFS they compained becaus I used the history from the main organisation page – what else was i suposed to use?

Oh I am still a life member and I used to run one of the big 3 national scale events in theuk for 18 plus so uf ime not qualifed to write the article who is!

how does one complain to Wales about an admin (i have a litle list)

By: Halfdeck

Halfdeck — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 05:39:43 +0000

Danny, I agree SEL is one of the best sources of SEO news out there. Having said that, if Aaron Wall’s seobook.com, Bill Slawski’s SEO by the sea, or Andy Beal’s Marketing Pilgrim don’t have their own Wikipedia entries, why should SEL get special treatment?

SEW stub page should go.

You’re also the wrong person to be defending SEM and SEL entries since your views are biased. You should have gotten other people in the SEO community to defend your positions instead.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 01:32:19 +0000

To be fair, Wikipedia does have a problem with people who view it as a nice high-ranking target for spam pages. By which I mean also PR fluff.

And as a group, they desperately crave academic prestige, with all the insecurity and standards-hypersensitivity of those who know they don’t have such social standing – that was the lesson of the Essjay scandal.

By: JEHochman

JEHochman — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 00:21:48 +0000

Yes, Wikipedia isn’t paper so there’s no limit on the number of entries. A non-spammy article stub with a few references, like SEL or SEM, should be kept and expanded. Vanityspamcruft should be blasted on sight.