Comments on: Going overboard with Wikipedia tags http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/01/12/wikipedia-tags/ My opinions only. I do not represent any organization in this publication. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:56:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Nestor http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/01/12/wikipedia-tags/#comment-96512 Nestor Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:30:15 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/01/12/wikipedia-tags/#comment-96512 This sort of thing, if it catches on, alongside the fact that wikipedia articles for your site often outrank it on the search engines is yet another reason to discourage sites from having articles about them on wikipedia. Pure traffic theft! Wikipedia takes all and never gives any back. This sort of thing, if it catches on, alongside the fact that wikipedia articles for your site often outrank it on the search engines is yet another reason to discourage sites from having articles about them on wikipedia. Pure traffic theft! Wikipedia takes all and never gives any back.

]]> By: Mike Linksvayer » Wikipedia and Linking 2.0 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/01/12/wikipedia-tags/#comment-79896 Mike Linksvayer » Wikipedia and Linking 2.0 Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:03:14 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/01/12/wikipedia-tags/#comment-79896 [...] I wrote something similar about a year ago: I consider a Wikipedia link more usable than a link to an organization home page. An organization article will link directly to an organization home page, if the latter exists. The reverse is almost never true (though doing so is a great idea). An organization article at Wikipedia is more likely to be objective, succinct, and informational than an organizational home page (not to mention there is no chance of encountering Flash, window resizing, or other annoying distractions — less charitably, attempts to control my browser — at Wikipedia). When I hear about something new these days, I nearly always check for a Wikipedia article before looking for an actual website. Finally, I have more confidence that the content of a Wikipedia article will be relevant to the content of my post many years from now. [...] [...] I wrote something similar about a year ago: I consider a Wikipedia link more usable than a link to an organization home page. An organization article will link directly to an organization home page, if the latter exists. The reverse is almost never true (though doing so is a great idea). An organization article at Wikipedia is more likely to be objective, succinct, and informational than an organizational home page (not to mention there is no chance of encountering Flash, window resizing, or other annoying distractions — less charitably, attempts to control my browser — at Wikipedia). When I hear about something new these days, I nearly always check for a Wikipedia article before looking for an actual website. Finally, I have more confidence that the content of a Wikipedia article will be relevant to the content of my post many years from now. [...]

]]> By: Nur mein Standpunkt » Blog Archive » Recht hat er http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/01/12/wikipedia-tags/#comment-3766 Nur mein Standpunkt » Blog Archive » Recht hat er Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:48:29 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/01/12/wikipedia-tags/#comment-3766 [...] Hervorhebung von mir, der Rest des Artikel von Mike Linksvayer in seinem Blog. Lesenswert. Beim NGC6544 setze ich das Prinzip “Wikipedia für Autoren” sehr gerne ein, weil man zumindest dort einen guten Startpunkt für weitergehende Recherchen bekommt. Zudem gibts oftmals keine richtig gute Homepage oder einfach überhaupt keine wenn der Autor halt keine möchte oder will. Gibts durchaus auch heute noch. Ein Lexikon oder ein Enzyklopädie, ihr Lieben, steht immer zu Beginn einer Recherche - und auch die Britannica kann Fehler enthalten, man sollte also - immer - seine - Quellen - prüfen. Immer! [...] [...] Hervorhebung von mir, der Rest des Artikel von Mike Linksvayer in seinem Blog. Lesenswert. Beim NGC6544 setze ich das Prinzip “Wikipedia für Autoren” sehr gerne ein, weil man zumindest dort einen guten Startpunkt für weitergehende Recherchen bekommt. Zudem gibts oftmals keine richtig gute Homepage oder einfach überhaupt keine wenn der Autor halt keine möchte oder will. Gibts durchaus auch heute noch. Ein Lexikon oder ein Enzyklopädie, ihr Lieben, steht immer zu Beginn einer Recherche – und auch die Britannica kann Fehler enthalten, man sollte also – immer – seine – Quellen – prüfen. Immer! [...]

]]> By: Mike Linksvayer http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/01/12/wikipedia-tags/#comment-3764 Mike Linksvayer Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:17:04 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/01/12/wikipedia-tags/#comment-3764 Chris, regarding your response -- you need to read your guru's <a href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/weblogs.html" rel="nofollow">weblog usability guide</a> -- he says that specialized sites rule the web, mixing topics is a no-no. Chris, regarding your response — you need to read your guru’s weblog usability guide — he says that specialized sites rule the web, mixing topics is a no-no.

]]> By: Chris. F. Masse .COM http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/01/12/wikipedia-tags/#comment-3761 Chris. F. Masse .COM Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:21:34 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/01/12/wikipedia-tags/#comment-3761 Mike, Thanks for making my case. I've added a response. You're 'formidable'! Ciao, Chris. F. Masse Mike,

Thanks for making my case. I’ve added a response.

You’re ‘formidable’!

Ciao,

Chris. F. Masse

]]> By: Chris. F. Masse .COM http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/01/12/wikipedia-tags/#comment-3757 Chris. F. Masse .COM Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:54:37 +0000 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/01/12/wikipedia-tags/#comment-3757 Mike, I've responded to your arguments in a comment at the bottom of my webpage... with sarcasm, of course. Hope it's not too much foggy in San Francisco today... Chris. F. Masse Mike,

I’ve responded to your arguments in a comment at the bottom of my webpage… with sarcasm, of course.

Hope it’s not too much foggy in San Francisco today…

Chris. F. Masse

]]>