Wired

Webmonkey

  • Web Dev & Design
    • Ajax
    • Backend
    • Blog Publishing
    • CSS
    • Databases
    • Fonts
    • Frameworks
    • HTML
    • HTML 5
    • JavaScript
    • Mobile
    • Multimedia
    • Programming
    • Security
    • UI/UX
    • Web Standards
  • Software & Apps
    • Browsers
    • Software
    • Web Apps
  • Platform & APIs
    • APIs
    • Identity
    • Location
    • Social
    • Web Services
  • Reference
    • Color Charts
    • HTML Cheat Sheets
    • Special Characters
    • Glossary
    • Templates
    • Code Snippets
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • RSS Feeds
Jan 22 2007
File Under: Uncategorized

Wikipedia Adds NOFOLLOW Attribute To Outbound Links

  • By Michael Calore

Wikipedialogo
Wikipedia began adding the rel="nofollow" attribute to all of the site’s outbound links over the weekend. The move reportedly comes in response to spammers targeting Wikipedia as a way to increase their search engine rankings. A recently launched spam contest was specifically cited in the decision to add the attribute to Wikipedia’s outbound links.

Wikipedia has experimented with nofollow in the past and the community voted against it, but as Wikipedia continues to grow it becomes an even bigger spam target. Spammers looking to raise their page rank via inbound links continually spam Wikipedia using robots, spiders and even hand editing to get their links onto the site.

Wikipedia’s decision to use the nofollow attribute in outbound links may deter some of the link spam since having a link with nofollow doesn’t help page rank which is the spammers main goal.

The rel="nofollow" attribute was in fact designed for exactly the reasons that Wikipedia has implemented it. Google recommends the tag be used in any situation where users may post public links that cannot be trusted, such as wiki-style editable pages or blog comments.

Unlike the “robots” meta tag which resides in a page’s header and tells search engine robots not to follow any links in the document, the rel tag does not stop Google’s spiders from following the link, it merely tells them not to count the link when calculating the linked page’s ranking.

Naturally not everyone is happy with Wikipedia’s decision.

Critics of the move claim that it will do little to stop spam and argue that it hurts legitimate sites, who may lose search engine ranking, more than it hurts the spammers. Additionally some bloggers are upset because they feel Wikipedia owes its popularity in part to the bloggers who linked to it.

But most of these criticisms don’t hold much water, particularly the shrill cries of but-we-made-you-what-you-are from bloggers threatening to add nofollow attributes to all their Wikipedia links.

If I remember right, links were created for humans to get from one page to another, so regardless of what Wikipedia’s links may mean for page rank, the links still serve their intended function.

Tags: communities
  • Post Comment  | 
  • Permalink
  • Digg
  • Stumble Upon
  • Facebook
  • Delicious
  • Reddit

Comments (1)

All fields required
  • Posted by: Brian | 01/23/07 | 4:32 am

    Scott said:- If I remember right, links were created for humans to get from one page to another, so regardless of what Wikipedia’s links may mean for page rank, the links still serve their intended function.

    The problem is, since Google (followed by others) changed the internet by giving top listing to whoever has the most inbound links, meaning that the top listing in many search categories no longer relate to the most relevant site, but to the site with a professional SEO with time to waste on building links, incoming links have becomes a battleground.
    So blame Google for the spammers here.

    This change by wiki DOES penalise legitimate posters.
    And wiki has it’s position in engines like google because of the vast number of links TO them.

    I have some pages on cultural and linguistic differences between the UK and US. They link to wiki.
    Likewise if I put info about those pages on Wiki I expect that to assist my search engine ranking.
    It’s quid pro quo.

Webmonkey's Picks

Browse Our Tutorials

HTML, JavaScript, design and more

Cheat Sheets

HTML, CSS and special characters

Color Charts

Brighten up your pages

Cut & Paste Code

Templates and snippets you can steal

Recent Comments

  • MangoMen on Turn Your WordPress Blog into a Forum
  • James on Code Optimizers Can Make View Source Useless
  • Arieh on 5 Reasons Why You’d Want Internet Explorer on the iPhone
  • Arieh on 5 Reasons Why You’d Want Internet Explorer on the iPhone
  • adwords on Get Started With AdWords
  • Recent Articles

  • Code Optimizers Can Make View Source Useless
  • Mozilla Labs Seeks to Tame Your Address Book With ‘Contacts’
  • Chrome Web Browser Adds Automatic Translation, Better Privacy Controls
  • Internet Explorer 9 Shows Up Faster, But Still Lacking
  • Opera on the iPhone? Yes, and Soon
  • Corrections | Sitemap | FAQ | Contact Us | Wired Staff | Advertising | Press Center | Subscription Services | Newsletter | RSS Feeds
    Condé Nast Web Sites:
    Webmonkey | Reddit | ArsTechnica | Details | Golf Digest | GQ | New Yorker

    Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (Revised 4/1/2009) and Privacy Policy (Revised 4/1/2009).

    Wired.com © 2010 Condé Nast Digital. All rights reserved.

    The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast Digital.