Doing research includes checking sources and therefore also the links going away from an article at Wikipedia. If an author thinks it's necessary to add a link than it's part of his contribution and Wikipedia should not have the right to kind of censor his work. And if this is one fist step of Wikipedia to start charging fees to post links, than this is even more ugly because they would be abusing the work of all those contributors who made Wikipedia possible in the first place - or does anybody think Wikipedia considers sharing the profits?WE are Wikipedia and this attempt to fight back is worth digging !PS: Spam is part of the Internet like rain is part of the weather. You just have to accept it. Use an umbrella!
NoFollow is a useful link attribute if you can't be bothered to moderate user generated content. However, sites & blogs that can't be bothered to moderate user generated content ought to be dropped from the search engines. Blogger adding this attribute tells me they think I won't moderate comments, or care where I link out to. I'm capable of doing this, and everyone else ought to be.
well, but imagine, its a hard work, only 88 people agree wit this, and there are a lot of webmasters!!! but why do you link to wikipedia? cant you write by your own a description of something? i will not place no follow links since I'm not linking to wikipedia in any pages..
drewhensonJan 23, 2007
devnill is absolutely right. and I'm sure everyone in school can definitely agree that wikipedia has the saved their ass at one time or another.
hansamuraiJan 24, 2007
Wikipedia is not a primary source, the links on the bottom are. That's why you go there when you're writing a paper or looking for more information.
acebrickmanJan 24, 2007
remember, anyone can change any entry at any time... Always check references for clarity when submitting a report buddy..
halfknightJan 25, 2007
Doing research includes checking sources and therefore also the links going away from an article at Wikipedia. If an author thinks it's necessary to add a link than it's part of his contribution and Wikipedia should not have the right to kind of censor his work. And if this is one fist step of Wikipedia to start charging fees to post links, than this is even more ugly because they would be abusing the work of all those contributors who made Wikipedia possible in the first place - or does anybody think Wikipedia considers sharing the profits?WE are Wikipedia and this attempt to fight back is worth digging !PS: Spam is part of the Internet like rain is part of the weather. You just have to accept it. Use an umbrella!
joycebabuMar 22, 2007
If wikipedia thinks adding nofollow to its links is ok, then why can't we do that?
tomc4tukJul 2, 2007
NoFollow is a useful link attribute if you can't be bothered to moderate user generated content. However, sites & blogs that can't be bothered to moderate user generated content ought to be dropped from the search engines. Blogger adding this attribute tells me they think I won't moderate comments, or care where I link out to. I'm capable of doing this, and everyone else ought to be.
diego018Jul 27, 2007
well, but imagine, its a hard work, only 88 people agree wit this, and there are a lot of webmasters!!! but why do you link to wikipedia? cant you write by your own a description of something? i will not place no follow links since I'm not linking to wikipedia in any pages..