Wikipedia. It’s that elephant in the living room. Actually, it’s more like that elephant perched at the top of the SERPs for just about any topic under the sun. The bane of existence for many an SEO, Wikipedia doesn’t just take the number one spot, it digs a moat around that spot, too.
And it’s not likely to change soon.
So what are you going to do about it? The way I see it, you have two choices: sit and grump about it, or join them. Here, then, are three ways to use Wikipedia to help you or your clients gain some visibility.
1ne :: Create You Own Wikipedia Entry
Yes, I know. Seems very obvious. Still, some people use Wikipedia much like a search engine. And with the Wikiasari project still sort of floating in the ether, it’s entirely possible that a well-crafted, objective company bio that manages to wiggle in a good keyword or two, will show up for the Wikirati. Be aware, however, that other users can edit this profile, so keeping it as objective as possible is key.
2wo :: Flash Your Expertise
On many topics, Wikipedia is begging for you to be involved by requesting editing or additional content from an expert on the subject. If you have clients involved in specialized fields, leverage that expertise into a Wikipedia entry and cite the client name and website in the notes. Sure, Wikipedia uses a “nofollow” for links, but users who get the answers they want may follow the link back to the experts page for additional and related information.
3hree :: Have a Peek at the Answers
Do a search on Answers.com for just about anything and you’ll find an exact reprint of the Wikipedia entry on that same topic. Why should you care? Because, while Wikipedia uses the “nofollow”, Answers.com does not. And with lots of link juice flowing through the pages at Answers.com, you are likely to get a good amount spilled on your website if you are mentioned in a Wikipedia entry.
It’s Worth Repeating
The Wikirati are notorious for sniffing out even the slightest hint of spam. And sometimes, they don’t just report it or take it down. Sometimes, they find as much dirt on the offending company as possible and put it all up there. Companies who go back to try removing it often get called out, exposing less-than-flattering details even more. So, I reiterate, be objective. Aim to inform, not to sell. If you do the informing part correctly, the selling part should take care of itself.
loading...
Yep. If people seeing you doing stuff on Wikipedia, knowing who you are, would think your work was good, then it probably is good
Utter honesty and transparency is not only the only way to survive, it gets you lots of goodwill.
David Gerard speaks the “Wiki-Lie”, that Wikipedia nurtures those with a philosophy that sunlight is the best disinfectant. In practice, however, the exact opposite reigns supreme on Wikipedia. Those who say who they are and reveal what they are doing are mocked, blocked, and defrocked. Those who stay secret and sneak their way into conflicted editing, generally are never caught.
Case in point — my “above board” attempt to create paid Wikipedia content was rejected with 100% spite and animosity. My subsequent forays into Wikipedia using secret sockpuppets — almost entirely unmolested.
There is no goodwill left to go around on Wikipedia.
Interesting advice, but if you want to write about yourself, you shouldn’t go to Wikipedia. Instead, try Centaire, Mr. Kohs’ site.
At Wikipedia, there is a conflict of interest policy that strongly discourages writing about yourself. As for writing about other topics to showcase your expertise, that’s fine. Go for it and if you do a good job, you can boost your reputation and visibility.
Agreeing with David Gerard and Jehochman. As a Wikipedia sysop I appreciate the straightforward approach, although I suggest putting self-descriptions into userspace and handling conflict situations by posting to article talk pages instead of directly to articles. Encyclopedic prose differs considerably from most business prose so a style that would be completely appropriate for a press release generates a negative reaction there. If you’re inexperienced, better to offer a set of citations and let the editors who know the format craft the prose.
If you care to curse a person or organization, then place their name on Wikipedia. For once that name is there, the world may play with it at will. There is no accountability, no credibility at Wikipedia.
Who exactly is this Joel Leyden, and why is he spamming so many sources with the same text?
Quite possibly a joe job, probably someone who got sitebanned. The claims are wrong too.
Excellent article. I especially like your third point about getting link juice from copycats like answers.com. I recently read a somewhat controversial post about why you shouldn’t put your company in the Wikipedia.
http://www.virtualmarketingblog.com/index.php/20070902/stay-out-wikipedia/