Apollo Hosting- Company Blog

I have, on many more than one occasion, linked some of my more obscure pop cultural and (on rarer occasions) technical references to Wikipedia. Why? Mostly because I find Wikipedia to be a great "front page" on a lot of subjects. Is someone "famous" referenced I've never heard of? Check Wikipedia. Some event mentioned casually on a TV show that I'm "supposed" to know about? Check Wikipedia. New technical term? Check Wikipedia.

I don't want to read an entire book on them, I just need the abstract to figure out what's going on. Wikipedia gives that to me.

It would seem a school of thought has developed in SEO/SEM that I am part of a problem. The "problem" seems to be that Wikipedia is ranking pretty well across Google for a wide variety of terms. Now, add a liberal dash of fact spun into Internet conspiracy theory about Google's traffic to Wikipedia "skyrocketing" over the past year, and we have the makings of juicy net gossip.

Now, even though it may make me seem like the petty, cynical sort, I'm betting most of the SEO's who dislike the Google/Wikipedia canoodle-fest are pretty much the same ones whom Wikipedia outranks for their chosen, money-making terms. Certainly, appealing to the age-old SEO axiom, "Everyone who outranks me is a spammer," doesn't do much for their case. Thus, slightly more advanced arguments have been forwarded about why this whole Wikipedia/SERPs thing is such a blight on the face of all human knowledge and accomplishment.

The Entry on Accuracy

Most of the arguments kind of fall into the nebulous web of exactly how "expert" an opinion Wikipedia provides. One of the core ideas behind Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. That includes you, me, and the guy in the next cubicle who has trouble grasping the idea that "bass" can be two different things depending on the stress on the vowel. Thus, were I to edit an article about particle physics, the information I include would be highly "non-expert." If a Nobel Laureate in physics did so, then perhaps there's a bit more credibility attached. The idea is that we both can do it, and we both can "undo" anything we feel is inaccurate in an article.

The end product of each of our theoretical edits is exactly the same. To the user, the entry doesn't add any additional visual cues to edits that are supposedly done by experts in the field. My inept, and most likely inaccurate, edits in particle physics would be presented with the same certainty as those of the expert.

There's no denying this issue exists and will exist as long as Wikipedia clings to its core values. Some choose to see it as a strength. Even though I post something dumb about particle physics, someone else with the right knowledge will come along and fix it. It's supposed to be a self-policing system.

Of late, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on citations for entries. Having used Wikipedia regularly for nearly two years, I've noticed the increasing number of citied elements in articles. Editors are now highly encouraged to cite sources for their additions/modifications, and many articles now feature a deep footnote section.

Citing sources still doesn't guarantee informational accuracy, as the enterprising individual can always find someone who wrote something that agrees with his or her own crackpot theory, even if it ends up being "my friend's blog."

Who Accurizes Accuracy?

So, Wikipedia can be inaccurate. Not going to deny that. The argument goes this inaccuracy is why Google should not be so friendly to Wikipedia results. Google is providing a link to a resource about something that might not provide "objectively correct information." That is, apparently, unacceptable to the SEM's whose pages are pushed lower because of it.

And your PPC leaden treatise on the same subject is ever so much more accurate? Says who?

You know, it might actually be. In most cases I'm not expert enough to make that call on my own. The point is that Google's definition of accuracy doesn't include "objectively correct information." Google basically considers accuracy (or, "worthiness to be listed as a search result") in terms of how many people think a resource is worthwhile. Much like Wikipedia and its free-for-all editing, Google is basically paying attention to the majority of people on the web who "vote" (via backlink) for one resource over another.

Sadly for our put-out SEMs, a lot more people think Wikipedia is more useful than their lovingly crafted page.

Complaining that Google is "promoting" inaccurate information over your own is pointless. We're just about a month out from a correction they made to their algorithm to defeat "Google Bombs," which were, on that simplistic objective level, inaccurate SERPs. They didn't teach the algorithm the "objective truth" behind the information; they just tweaked how they handled the votes in certain circumstances.

The Popular Vote

Speaking of those votes, they have something to do with the general conspiracy theory about Google and Wikipedia being in, as they say, "cahoots," for all the additional traffic and listings they've garnered over the past year or so. It's a corollary to that axiom about the people outranking you being spammers. If they really aren't, then it's obviously a conspiracy...

The simple question is: did you know about Wikipedia 2 years ago... or more?

It's only been within the last year or so that Wikipedia has hit the "mainstream." With greater visibility comes greater familiarity, and, bingo, many more natural backlinks. All those little terms I've linked over the past couple years in this very blog have been drops in the bucket that comprise part of the deluge.

Wikipedia is ranking well because an ever growing number of people feel something similar to my opening thoughts way up in that first paragraph. It's a great place to get a quick explanation, or to "give" one, as is the case with the terms I link in this blog. Providing detailed background information on everything can be cumbersome and bogs down all that tight, well-crafted prose I routinely produce.

(Insert Laughter Here.)

Links are the votes, and Google has probably been seeing the count rise steadily over the past year. Lo, did Wikipedia become the SREPs juggernaut it is today. Seems like pretty simple particle physics to me.

Disclaimer

In all fairness, I'll admit I don't compete with Wikipedia on any term at the moment. But, man, when I do... Those jerks are so gonna need to be nerfed, big time.