On 23/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@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