NetBusinessBlog

Approaching Wikipedia the Right Way

Posted on 18. Dec, 2008 by Dave in Business

Wikipedia is a slimy marketer, PR, or SEO-type’s wet dream. “An authoritative website with hundreds of thousands of natural backlinks that can be edited publicly!?” I hear you exclaim in giddy delight. At least that’s what you would have said … a couple years ago when Wikipedia was still new, exciting, and ripe for exploit.

Over the past couple of years, however, spammers have learned to steer clear of Wikipedia. Its army of zealous editors are insurmountable. Their judging eyes are constantly scanning every inch of content on the site, and they will happily obliterate any addition they feel is inappropriate. Which is fine. Just culling the flock.

Because while 99% of spammers fail to get their content on Wikipedia, there are a lot of people doing it everyday with success. But it requires a different approach. Here are a couple of rules I go by when I’m trying to get some sexy Wikipedia links.

Dont’ Volume Spam Wikipedia

SEO-types are used to dealing with algorithms. This is different in dealing with actual people in that an algorithm has a set of rules and criteria that it follows when judging the behavior of an SEO. If the SEO works within those strict rules his efforts will pay out. However, Wikipedia is powered by people (editors). Although they too have rules, they are able to judge the behavior of each SEO individually. They’re much better at determining intent in a way only a human can.

So that’s all nice to know, but what does it mean?

Well first off, it means that the answer to winning on Wikipedia is NOT volume spamming. We’re used to doing this as it works in almost every other situation. We craft the perfect message (or in this case, get the perfect link) and blast it out in the highest volume possible hoping that a few will stick.

While you might get one or two links into Wikipedia using this method, it is hella fail. You need to approach Wikipedia with a much more micro mentality, attempting to get just your best links on the most relevant articles on the site. Volume spamming fails in Wikipedia.

Factor in Editor Cynicism

Wikipedia editors spend 10% of their days adding useful, relevant content to pages and the other 90% weeding out spam. When some Randy comes in and starts messing around with the pages they frequent, they will automatically assume you’re a spammer – which means you have to start out by selling them on the notion that you’re NOT a spammer.

Maybe before you ever add a link to a page you contribute to that page’s discussion. Get on the editor’s good side. Comment on his recent edits and maybe even add some of your own.

It’s really not rocket science – it all comes down to building some trust. That’s the whole secret behind marketing in a web 2.0 world. Build trust. Once they trust you they will be much more willing to let your changes stick.

Contribute Content, Not Just Links

This was just touched on a wee bit in the previous heading, but I just want to reiterate it. Wikipedia keeps a log of everything you change about a page. If that log shows you (Mr. Randy Joe) landing on a page, shoving in a single link, and running off to do the same on another dozen pages, then it’s pretty clear you’re a spammer.

However, if that log shows an interested user logging in, adding a few paragraphs of relevant content, and then dropping a worthwhile link at the end, then you start to look like an actual contributor. Actual contributors usually have an easier time with their links sticking than spammers.

Check Back Often (but not too often)

Your links WILL vanish. When I was running a StarCraft fan site I had about 50 links on Wikipedia for roughly 2 years. When StarCraft 2 was announced there was a surge of editing traffic to the pages I had links on for so long. Before I knew it I was down to 15 links on those pages for that site.

Why the sudden drop? A couple reasons…

First off, people were just excited about the new game and were actively editing the pages again. Different people have different ideas of what links constitute spam and what links add value. I’m sure a lot of new editors just didn’t think my links were adding value, especially since the bulk of them probably weren’t familiar with my site before seeing them.

Secondly, there were a ton of new competing StarCraft sites being launched. Competitors who are trying to get Wikipedia links will often bump yours off. I personally never remove ANY links from Wikipedia as it makes you look like even more of a spammer than just adding links. But a lot of people do.

So the point is, your links will vanish – and all you can do is check back often, and readd them if necessary. Now don’t check back weekly spamming the same link. But monthly maybe, sure. And if the same link is constantly being deleted, just stop adding it. There are tons of Wikipedia pages out there, don’t get blocked or banned by stubbornly submitting the same link over and over.

Wikipedia is a great source of both link juice and very relevent traffic. At the peak of my Wikipedia marketing efforts I had one site getting about 1,200 unique visitors per month from Wikipedia alone. These visitors were often better than SE traffic browsing up to 3 pv/v.

But you have to tread lightly. Strong arm won’t work with Wikipedia. Follow the rules, and you might get a link or two to stick.