Wikibombing refers to the deprecated practice of creating Wikipedia articles, and internal linking within Wikipedia, for purposes of maximizing the Google page rank of a Wikipedia article, and thereby elevating the prominence of a subject in the service of political or social advocacy.

The term first gained public attention in connection with the Wikipedia article Campaign for "santorum" neologism, covering an attempt by supporters of Dan Savage to equate Rick Santorum's surname with a by-product of anal sex, and a related Google bomb campaign by Savage to propagate the term on the Internet.

Shortly after the press reported in late April and early May 2011 that Republican Rick Santorum might be running for president of the United States, the article on Dan Savage's campaign, then titled "santorum (neologism)", was expanded more than three-fold. Three new navigation templates that included the article were created: Template:Sexual slang, Template:Political neologisms, and Template:Dan Savage. These templates were then added to several hundred articles, creating several hundred in-bound links. The article was also added to a fourth, already existing template, Template:LGBT slang. In addition, seven articles related to Dan Savage, whose biography also contains a section on the controversy and a link to the article, were nominated for DYK appearances on the main page within the space of about a week.

The article then jumped to the top of the list of Google search results for "santorum", causing concern among many editors that it had become a part of the Google bomb attack, rather than reporting on it, thus compromising the project's political neutrality as well as raising WP:BLP concerns. The result was widespread controversy on-wiki, the wikien-l mailing list, an RfC on renaming or merging the article, a failed arbitration request, and a report in The Register that coined the term "wikibombing".^[1]

When expanding articles (especially those related to existing online campaigns), creating new navigation templates and adding them to other articles, consider appearances. Creating exceptionally detailed coverage of a controversial topic subject to pre-existing online campaigning, and creating dozens or hundreds of in-bound to your article via navigation templates and related DYK nominations, may leave the community unsure of your motivations. If your actions look like those of an editor intent on using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, the assumption of good faith may evaporate.

• WP:Activist
• WP:Advocacy
• WP:Advertising
• WP:DYK#Selection_criteria ("Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided."
• WP:NPOV
• WP:Soap