Related to : [webmasterworld.com...]

Good news, and yes, as Dimitri says, it relates to the earlier story.
Others, such as Amazon need to step up, too.

Also related:


Sergey donates to Wikipedia:

[hollywoodreporter.com...]
It was one week later that Wikipedia began a political campaign to endorse Google's and Verizon's "net neutrality" proposals with the FTC.

[washingtonpost.com...]

[engadget.com...]

At a very simplstic level could this mean that those of us with genuine, unique informational pages / sites, will need to create / improve upon Wiki widget pages?

Bad news. This shows how the "priority publisher" cast system is proliferating. The volunteers are also taken advantage of. They should be compensated, not those who run Wikipedia Enterprise.

The solution is simple - stop contributing to Wikipedia and contribute to your own website instead.

The solution is simple - stop contributing to Wikipedia and contribute to your own website instead.

Not really a solution since Google alone would monetize those efforts as they do now. Maybe a better solution would be a revenue sharing requirement where a portion of the profits from ads displayed for each query are returned to entities appearing in the query. Those entities would then be required to disburse a percentage of those funds to those individuals who are not compensated already or under-compensated for their work. Such a revenue sharing model would help end Google's business model that is akin to digital slavery.

They should be compensated, not those who run Wikipedia Enterprise.

I can't imagine the cost of running Wikipedia alone, and that is what this is for. Wikimedia's operation is not-for-profit, so there aren't shareholders, as such, so it's not the same at all. I don't doubt people managing Wikimedia, and Wikipedia, etc., are getting paid, and that's fine.

The solution is simple - stop contributing to Wikipedia and contribute to your own website instead.

There are two things here. 1. without contributors, Wikipedia would be a pale shadow of its current self. 2. Indeed, we should be contributing to our own sites.

stop contributing to Wikipedia and contribute to your own website instead.

It never came to mind to enrich Wikipedia's content at the expense of my own sites ...

Wikipedia is the biggest scraper on the web.

Years ago I had quite a few articles on topics for which there was no corresponding wikipedia page. Many of these articles ranked no. 1 in google for their main keywords. Later people began to create wikipedia pages for these same topics and oftentimes got most of their content from my articles. They didn't copy it verbatim but it was clear that most of the information came from my articles and in most cases they linked to my articles as a reference. (But eventually most of these links were deleted by other people.)

Not surprisingly these wikipedia pages gradually climbed to the top of the rankings for these topics and took nearly all of the search traffic.

This isn't my only complaint about wikipedia, but I don't have time now to go into those other matters.

i'm in complete agreement with aristotle and have a similar experience, especially with the references to my site just being removed over time.

... and that's not even to touch the hot potato of the political bias.

most of these links were deleted by other people

How about this for a bombshell - I have credible suspicion that there is paid Wikipedia reference link removal going on by rogue Wikipedia moderators.

They also remove backlinks for their personal / ideological reasons, have blacklists of websites that they don't agree with etc.

The fish is rotting from the head. At the lower community levels, it is still a wonderful resource. I use it all the time, and I make sure I include the branded "wiki" keyword in my searches so that I actually get the Wikipedia page and not some clickbait influencer video explaining in 15 minutes what I would look up in written form in 15 seconds.

I predicted this years ago. Cutts himself had morality issues around using other people's content for free in such a way. The great scraper of content. Um, I mean answers. Or course the ethical move is to pay for the F content. So what do all the other people get who have been so good, that Google and others want to use their content for actual content. You know, like stopping people from clicking through to the source. I tell you one thing. The fools who wrote content on wiki for free should form a union and strike over this deal. Money exchanging hands? Oh really. BTW the only reason Bing is doing this is because Google started it. Our images are now content for Google to populate ads with. Not a finger lifted but they got the ad platform and content for free. FTW.