On 23/08/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/014605.html
Many less than ideal bits, but hearteningly clueful. Durova's Letter
to the SEOs appears to have sunk in, as has JEHochman's continued
attempts to spread clue amongst the marketers.
- d.
mmmmmm not sure if it has helped. Durova's posts which were about the
symbios of wiki projects led to some very extreme ideas:-
* Filling Competitors articles with internal wikilinks (?) to boost
wikipedia other competitors "keywords"
*A nofollow campaign when any WP article is mentioned in a blog.
(I'll find the blogs if I can, but certainly with the nofollow one, I'd
rather link it in aramaic than have it listed on an open list.)
As for Wikiscanner its a great thing for bored journalists, but the role of
editors on wikipedia in the reports has been non-existent. "...which was
reverted by a wikipedia admin" etc. However much we hated wikitruth it did
give credit to the tireless editors who actually use their watchlist or RC.
I personally coundn't care less who has edited wikipedia, what I care about
is factual npov (and no that doesn't include removing factual sentences).
Wikiscanner only proves what wikiscanner proves. It certainly says nothing
about wikipedia.
mike