Wikipedia links - yes or no?

xinga

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
435
Reaction score
181
Here is my situation:
I got a keyword with 5,000 monthly searches. I am currently ranking on #3 to #5 and trying to reach the top, though for some reason this is quite hard.

The Wikipedia article is on #1, but it is a stub (my site is a huuuge article with 3k words and 20 related pictures). I got a well established wikipedia account and could insert my link into that article, but I would also need to flesh things out a bit to warrant that link.

would u do it? or am I hurting myself by pushing the relevancy of the wikipedia article.
 
Go for it... but in my idea a top editorial link like huffington post will work better. Huffington post Is do Follow and yes Wikipedia still provides some link juice it isn't as much as Huffington post or forbes etc.
 
Hmm, that's a tough one. I guess it could help you to go above 2/3/4 but your right it will potentially solidify the wiki page on number 1 spot.

I would say maybe no. Also isn't wiki no follow anyway?

Maybe try to find what you are missing in relation to the other sites. Maybe you just need a few authoritative links, but not from your direct comp.
 
Hmm, that's a tough one. I guess it could help you to go above 2/3/4 but your right it will potentially solidify the wiki page on number 1 spot.

I would say maybe no. Also isn't wiki no follow anyway?

Maybe try to find what you are missing in relation to the other sites. Maybe you just need a few authoritative links, but not from your direct comp.

Yes Wikipedia is a nofollow link.

But the real question is, if I do have a nofollow link on a wikipedia article under "resources", does google actually recognize it and would be more likely to rank me on 1 or not?

As for the Huffpost suggestion. Not sure if I want to invest the money. It is a non-commercial keyword and paying 500usd for a good article is a tick over the top as there is only one semi-related affiliate link and a bit of google adsense on the page.

i just decided to add a youtube video to the page, though. Can't hurt and there are no relevant videos so far.
 
Yes Wikipedia is a nofollow link.

But the real question is, if I do have a nofollow link on a wikipedia article under "resources", does google actually recognize it and would be more likely to rank me on 1 or not?

As for the Huffpost suggestion. Not sure if I want to invest the money. It is a non-commercial keyword and paying 500usd for a good article is a tick over the top as there is only one semi-related affiliate link and a bit of google adsense on the page.

i just decided to add a youtube video to the page, though. Can't hurt and there are no relevant videos so far.
Don't have to spend $500 with me ;)
Only $350.... check my sig.
 
Yes Wikipedia is a nofollow link.

But the real question is, if I do have a nofollow link on a wikipedia article under "resources", does google actually recognize it and would be more likely to rank me on 1 or not?

As for the Huffpost suggestion. Not sure if I want to invest the money. It is a non-commercial keyword and paying 500usd for a good article is a tick over the top as there is only one semi-related affiliate link and a bit of google adsense on the page.

i just decided to add a youtube video to the page, though. Can't hurt and there are no relevant videos so far.

Yea I think the link will still be beneficial. I guess you could give it a try - I suppose if adding 3k words to your article hasn't helped then beefing up the wiki with a bit more content should give that page too much more of an advantage.

You can always remove the link if it doesn't help.
 
So i decided to update the wikipedia article. Let's see what happens (beyond the 20 referrals it send me yesterday, lol). also added a youtube video and blasted some low retention views to it. Also added 40 manuel blog comments.
no movement so far, but i'll watch it over the next days. if everything fails i might actually go for that huffpost or similar backlink..hm hm..

totally forgot what a hassle screwing with wikipedia is. also randomly fixed a couple of other sites to blurr the footprint. as no1 seems to be watching the site, i feel like my link could stick for the next couple of months. It's a good link, but obviously my money site isn't the new york times either.
 
Pushing the relevancy of wikipedia? it is already relevant and there already. You can still add the Wikipedia link on your blog and rank #1. But if possible, then add the link from wiki to your page.
 
Yes for a branded profile link ;) most people wont read references unless your on the top first few paragraphs:) you can consider it a big difference to your traffic %
 
I would do it, if you have a good account of wikipedia nothing happens because you make an external reference. They give you several warnings before locking your account
 
@xinga How did this end? Wikipedia still #1? Were you able to outrank it?
sadly no, but I didn't put that much effort into it. Am currently on #2 right after wikipedia. My "backlink" is still there tho.

updating the article was probably a mistake.
 
Not really if your page has been further secured at #2
well..there is no way to proof that, is there? as I did not only edit the wikipedia article, but did some further stuff. I mean..they say a wiki link ads plenty of trust...but as I got plenty of them one or more isn't going to rock the game.
 
well..there is no way to proof that, is there? as I did not only edit the wikipedia article, but did some further stuff. I mean..they say a wiki link ads plenty of trust...but as I got plenty of them one or more isn't going to rock the game.
My point was that you didn't really waste your time, even if it was minimal impact.
 
Back
Top