Wikipedia:Wikibombing (SEO): Difference between revisions
Fences and windows (talk | contribs) Hatnote |
Remove references to templates and DYK - the person who wrote this page is apparently unaware that Google does not use internal links in a domain to compute pagerank values |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
The term was used in connection with SEO in a report by ''[[The Register]]''<ref>Metz, Cade (20 June 2011). [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/wikipedia_and_santorum/ "Wikipedia awash in 'frothy by-product' of US sexual politics"], ''[[The Register]]'', 20 June 2011</ref> on the use of the [[Campaign for "santorum" neologism]] Wikipedia article as part of an [[search engine optimization|SEO]] and [[Google bomb]] campaign by [[Dan Savage#Political advocacy|Dan Savage]] to make his campaign website number one in [[SERP]]s for anyone [[googling]] for the candidate's last name. |
The term was used in connection with SEO in a report by ''[[The Register]]''<ref>Metz, Cade (20 June 2011). [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/wikipedia_and_santorum/ "Wikipedia awash in 'frothy by-product' of US sexual politics"], ''[[The Register]]'', 20 June 2011</ref> on the use of the [[Campaign for "santorum" neologism]] Wikipedia article as part of an [[search engine optimization|SEO]] and [[Google bomb]] campaign by [[Dan Savage#Political advocacy|Dan Savage]] to make his campaign website number one in [[SERP]]s for anyone [[googling]] for the candidate's last name. |
||
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, to a length of over 5,000 words. |
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, to a length of over 5,000 words. The article 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 [[Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_victimization|WP:BLP]] concerns. The result was widespread controversy on-wiki, the wikien-l mailing list, an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism&oldid=435467230#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content RfC on renaming or merging the article], a failed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=435040719#Political_activism arbitration request], and a critical report in ''[[The Register]]'' that used the term "wikibombing". |
||
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 [[Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_victimization|WP:BLP]] concerns. The result was widespread controversy on-wiki, the wikien-l mailing list, an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism&oldid=435467230#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content RfC on renaming or merging the article], a failed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=435040719#Political_activism arbitration request], and a critical report in ''[[The Register]]'' that used the term "wikibombing". |
|||
==Guidance== |
==Guidance== |
||
When expanding articles (especially those related to existing online campaigns) |
When expanding articles (especially those related to existing online campaigns), consider appearances and effects. Creating exceptionally detailed coverage of a controversial topic subject to pre-existing online campaigning, may leave the community unsure of your motivations. If your actions look like those of an editor intent on using [[search engine optimization|SEO]] techniques to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, the [[WP:AGF|assumption of good faith]] may evaporate. |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
Revision as of 21:33, 21 June 2011
Wikibombing refers to the deprecated practice of using various SEO techniques, including the creation of Wikipedia articles and internal linking, for purposes of maximizing the search engine results page of Wikipedia and/or non-Wikipedia articles, and thereby elevating their prominence in the service of political or social advocacy.
Origin
Urban Dictionary has various definitions dating back to 2008.[1] The term has been used in connection with SEO techniques as well.[2]
The term was used in connection with SEO in a report by The Register[3] on the use of the Campaign for "santorum" neologism Wikipedia article as part of an SEO and Google bomb campaign by Dan Savage to make his campaign website number one in SERPs for anyone googling for the candidate's last name.
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, to a length of over 5,000 words. The article 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 critical report in The Register that used the term "wikibombing".
Guidance
When expanding articles (especially those related to existing online campaigns), consider appearances and effects. Creating exceptionally detailed coverage of a controversial topic subject to pre-existing online campaigning, may leave the community unsure of your motivations. If your actions look like those of an editor intent on using SEO techniques to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, the assumption of good faith may evaporate.
See also
- 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:Search engine optimization
- WP:Soap
References
- ^ Wikibomb, Urban Dictionary
- ^ Operation Wiki Bomb?, Discussion in 'Think Tank' started by Avtomat, May 1, 2009
- ^ Metz, Cade (20 June 2011). "Wikipedia awash in 'frothy by-product' of US sexual politics", The Register, 20 June 2011