How to get linkback from wikipedia?

[quickcashstrategy]

hey again!
I would like to know a better way to put my link in wikipedia, because I tried to edit article there and try to put linkback but without any success, in fact wiki delete them;
ok I'm thinking to write for it, is it the best way and I've to write in niche of my site or give people some info about any domain and put linkback in my site??

[cbpayne]

Don't even waste your time trying. Spammers always get their links deleted (and yes, you are a spammer as you tried to add your own link). They are nofollow'd anyway.

[quickcashstrategy]

however, i want to know the best and right way to do it..

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by quickcashstrategy

however, i want to know the best and right way to do it..

They're citations.

Only way it'd be accepted is if the information your citing is actually found on your website with the link you provided.

[cbpayne]

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

They're citations.

Only way it'd be accepted is if the information your citing is actually found on your website with the link you provided.

You missing the point. YOU don't do it. Someone else will do it if your site is worthy of a 'citation'.

BTW - I have about a dozen links from Wikipedia to some of my sites (for what they are worth) and I did NOTHING to get them except make the content of my sites linkable.

[KevL]

It's not that "Wiki" delete them - an editor deletes them.

Editors aren't employed by Wikipedia, they're just normal editors like you or me, anyone can be an editor - but it's very difficult to get a backlink to stick.

It can be done, but you really have to know what you're doing or know someone who does.

Back before Wikipedia backlinks were nofollowed, this was a tactic some employed - I did at one stage, I had an experienced wikipedia editor get links in for me.

It's not really worth doing now, not from an SEO stamdpoint anyway - may get you some traffic, but it's pretty difficult to do, so your time is probably better off spent on something else

Cheers

Kev

[KevL]

Originally Posted by cbpayne

You missing the point. YOU don't do it. Someone else will do it if your site is worthy of a 'citation'.

BTW - I have about a dozen links from Wikipedia to some of my sites (for what they are worth) and I did NOTHING to get them except make the content of my sites linkable.

I don't think he is missing the point. Just because they're citations doesn't mean that you can't get your own website in as citations - do you think this isn't done? it is, or it certainly used to be before Wikipedia started nofollowing.

If you have a website which appears to be an authority in a certain area, and which appears to be a reliable source, then it can be used as a reference within an article.

If you're saying it shouldn't be done, then that's a whole other topic I think, but he're you appear to be saying that you don't or can't do it for your own site. You can, if you have a site which will pass as a reliable source. I'm sure other wikipedia editors wouldn't be happy if they knew you were slipping in your own sites, but again that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Cheers

Kev

[Brad Callen]

Matt McGee has a timeless article on adding your business' own wiki page and when (or, when not to) add your own: Should a Small Business have a Wikipedia article?

mg is right though, here's the breakdown from BigOakInc, and I have to agree.

1. Fill in missing citation gaps. Wikipedia will occasionally have sentences with a “citation needed” link after them. Create content on your site that revolves around that missing citation. If its quality is high enough, Wikipedia may let that pass as the citation.
2. Manufacture a Wikipedia page that has high relevancy to an existing page. Link to that new page from an existing Wikipedia page. Add an external link to the new page as a reference. This has a higher probability of sticking since the page is fresh and needs sources.

[KevL]

Originally Posted by quickcashstrategy

however, i want to know the best and right way to do it..

Honesly I think you're on a fast track here to wasting a looooad of time.

If you wanted to slip your own sites in as references, you could - but you'd have to really learn your way around Wikipedia as an editor, which takes time & effort, and then you would have to develop websites which are regarded highly enough to be accepted by other editors to be a valid reference to cite from. This isn't really that easy to do.

And even if you do manage all this - why? It won't do a great deal for you - it may get you some direct traffic, but it won't do anything for you in terms of SEO, as the links are nofollowed. It's not likely to get you that much direct traffic either, not that many people bother looking at the references in Wikipedia. On a high traffic page you may get some good traffic - but on a high traffic page you're likely to come across a lot of editors, who'll scrutinize all new citations - and unless you hae a website which is well regarded in the field, it's very unlikely you'll get it to stick.

Cheers

Kev

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by cbpayne

You missing the point. YOU don't do it. Someone else will do it if your site is worthy of a 'citation'.

BTW - I have about a dozen links from Wikipedia to some of my sites (for what they are worth) and I did NOTHING to get them except make the content of my sites linkable.

I didn't miss any point.

ANYONE can suggest a citation, even for their own sites.

Seems like you're the one who missed the point of my post.

[ksummers]

Of course the ethics of citing yourself are dubious but if you are linking to a good. Relevant source here are a couple of hints to get them to stick.

Firstly, don't go after the obvious pages. Think outside the box a little and look for pages that don't seem to be highly moderated. E.g if you market weight loss products dont go for diet pills, try homing in on a slightly obscure ingredient and slip your link in there.

Secondly, sandwich your link between existing links. I know Wikipedia has editing history but if you make it less obvious you have less chance of it being chucked out ( although for getting visitors this works against you).

Also be careful with your anchor text. Don't use Sammy marketing titles, try to make them read like a title for a scientific journal entry if you can.

[paulgl]

Difficult to get any links to stay up. No matter how some people want
to convince you. They just don't stay there. People delete them quick,
especially on sites that are worth it.

The truth is, you can create an infinite number of accounts on
an ongoing basis and post the links to high traffic, applicable sites.
They can your account right away for spamming anyway.

Second way is to find orphaned but decent topic sites. These are
more likely to fly under the radar, but then where's the traffic?

Every so often I give wikipedia a good spamming, but it's not something
I dwell on. At least I admit it's spam, no matter how wonderful and related
my links are, I'm still linking for no other purpose than linking.

The whole thing is nofollow, and militant editors abound, so in the end, what's the
long term effect? Nil.

But, the citation thing is a twist I never thought of and may give that a go
when I have exhausted all other things I do in a day...

Paul

[hotftuna]

"Honesly I think you're on a fast track here to wasting a looooad of time.
If you wanted to slip your own sites in as references, you could - but you'd have to really learn your way around Wikipedia as an editor, which takes time & effort"

Good point but if I was a SE Algo Engineer, I would value inbound links that are hard to get as more important than links that anyone can get. Don't tell me that nofollow links have no SEO value- They may not pass pagerank but that does not mean that they are not an important part of promotion.

[Bharat2010]

The Links are nofollow and they are strictly moderated. So if you are trying to SPAM, Forget it.

[KevL]

Originally Posted by hotftuna

"Honesly I think you're on a fast track here to wasting a looooad of time.
If you wanted to slip your own sites in as references, you could - but you'd have to really learn your way around Wikipedia as an editor, which takes time & effort"

Good point but if I was a SE Algo Engineer, I would value inbound links that are hard to get as more important than links that anyone can get. Don't tell me that nofollow links have no SEO value- They may not pass pagerank but that does not mean that they are not an important part of promotion.

Yeah I see what you're saying - but there's links that are hard to get & then there are links that are HAAAAAAAAARD to get, and even harder to keep.

If someone has a website that is strong enough to be deemed as a source of reference - then fair enough (although if this is the case then you probably don't need to try to slip your own site in as a reference anyway as others will cite your site as a reference as this is the case - editors are always looking for good sources of reference, especialy in specialist niches.)

Ref whether or not it's worth gaining nofollow backlinks - yes of course any backlink is worth having if it may bring traffic, what I was saying is that I wouldn't have thought you'd get much traffic from reference links - how many people actually click on reference links in Wikipedia?

Cheers

Kev