Comments: Wikipedia "nofollow" aftermath

Actually, I think Shelley's idea may be a good one; not remove it, but sidebar it elsewhere, so that it always shows where relevent, but isn't actually part of the search results, SEOs can then ignore it and users can find it easily.

When I'm looking something up, I tend to search both, separately, anyway (using the firefox searchbar), so it's a to be expected user behaviour anyway.

Posted by MatGB at January 24, 2007 12:09 PM

Boring. Get over your hostility to Wikipedia. It makes you look peevish. Did somebody once edit one of your contributions and you could not stand to be corrected?

Posted by RP at January 24, 2007 07:10 PM

" can horde outlinks like Scrooge..."

Genghis Khan had a horde, Scrooge had a hoard.

Posted by Alan at January 27, 2007 01:51 AM

MatGB: Maybe. But it brings up complicated issues of favoritism.

Alan: Thanks, I've fixed it. I'm terrible at proofreading. Sadly, spellcheck doesn't do anything to help catch such errors.

Posted by Seth Finkelstein at January 27, 2007 01:58 AM

I have cited this article in my blog: Wikipedia and Academia Hit News Headlines Again

Posted by Mohamed Taher at February 18, 2007 11:26 PM

I have a reply to the comment made by RP.
My reaction is about Wiki and its 'contributors.' I had terrible experiences with un-qualified / un-ethical practices of editing my stuff. Those who had no idea of my subject or specialization, walked in, and boldly deleted my content. No discussion and no talk was felt necessary. Permission to edit by any walkie-talkie is the birth right; you don't even need to be a registered user, that is worst part of this often cited reference tool. Even those who are registered need not show their original name or full name!!!

Posted by Mohamed Taher at February 18, 2007 11:38 PM