I received an email from Carsten Cumbrowski while jetsetting in China:

Jonathan Hochman (aka Jehochman) was spending a lot of time on cleaning up the article about SEO at Wikipedia. It is now in the review for becoming a featured article candidate.

You would probably agree that it would be a good thing, if SEO gets featured one day on the Wikipedia homepage to raise awareness among the normal people about the industry.

Carsten is hoping that some experts from the world of search marketing will help to join in the discussion about making the article on search engine optmization featured. I used to be conflicted about the SEO article at Wikipedia (link condom applied as I don't editorially vouch for that page) - in many ways it seems like helping to make it more accurate and higher quality is the right thing to do. After all, when most people search for SEO or Search Engine Optimization, that's the first thing they'll read. It's not a great introduction by any means. Bill's criticized it in the past and even put in some of his incredibly valuable time trying to improve it. Aaron Wall's lashed out against it, too. Now, it's my turn.

The article is not, at this point, terrible. However, like any content on Wikipedia it's subject to the "prevailing winds" of attitudes and publicity about SEO. This week, for example, it appears that it's no longer part of the Wikipedia series on spamming, but if a big media outlet decides to frame the discussion another way, we're all up a creek. This is just one of Wikipedia's many weaknesses.

Another big one that's highly evident in the discussion page is the bias towards traditional media as more knowledgeable, legitimate and trustworthy than blogs, industry resources or online-only media. Here's poor John fighting with a tragically uninformed Wikipedian on the subject:

Before you review featured article candidates, SandyGeorgia, I hope that you will at least read the articles. From your edit history I see that you probably spent less than five minutes looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization. I can't imagine how that would be enough time to give a thoughtful review. I don't treat other editors that way, and I don't expect other editors to treat my efforts with such disregard. This is the first time I've tried to elevate an article to featured status, and your review has made me feel both foolish and unwelcome

I'm sorry my comments made you feel foolish, but it doesn't take more than a few minutes to review sources and find blogs, Usenet and personal websites were used to source the article. It shouldn't be too hard to replace those with reliable sources if you know the territory well. Best regards, SandyGeorgia

I love what Jon said (BTW - The personal website she refers to is Matt Cutts' - as though the irony needed highlighting). He's dealing with the same problem the SEO community experiences in every unfriendly web community - ignorant, self-important blowhards favoring uninformed prejudice over logical investigation and honesty. Here's how it should work:

1. Read something about SEO on Wikipedia
2. Think to yourself - huh, I wonder if that's accurate
3. Investigate the author a bit - are they reliable, generally honest, trustworthy, experienced?
4. Investigate the subject matter - spend some time in the popular, well-regarded SEO blogs, forums and read some industry resources
5. Come back and re-read
6. If you still disagree, consider bringing it up in the discussion and be sure to mention that you're not an industry expert, cite your sources and be respectful
7. If you think you've got a real point, go ahead and make your edits

Here's how it actually works:

1. Read something about SEO on Wikipedia
2. Note that it doesn't match with your prejudiced, pre-conceived notions of SEO as spam
3. Make a bunch of edits and deletions
4. When pressed by industry experts, dismiss their sources as lacking credibility
5. When pressed further, find Wikipedia rules that work in your favor - since you can't argue from experience, use your powers of derision and dismissal combined with bureaucratic wordplay to frustrate and demoralize your opposition
6. Find other inexperienced people with similar biases towards SEO and recruit them to your cause

This isn't just how its done on Wikipedia, or with SEO. Those who are familiar with message boards in the political arena, or the operations at DMOZ, or attitudes at web forum communities will get an eery sense of Deja Vu. This is what I despise about these sites. I've never gone into a message board about venture capital and spouted off about how it's all a dirty scam run by idiots, yet when this happens to SEOs, there's inevitably a chorus of cheers from the peanut gallery.

To my mind, Wikipedia is undeserving of many of the rankings and visibility it achieves, though I certainly concede that there are many truly excellent resources on the site. The fundamental problem with Wikipedia is one of trust - the trust that might be applied to one page there cannot be applied to the whole, yet by Google's ranking algorithm, this is certainly the case. Google (and Yahoo! and MSN) treat Wikipedia as though it were a single publisher, spreading the trust, authority and link love across the entire site, even though each page is basically its own site (and should, thus, be judged individually). Granted, the editorial process at Wikipedia does provide some basic level of review, but it's not even as high as something like YOUmoz, where Rebecca reviews and approves, edits and denies entries. At least there, you know you're getting some consistency with the SEOmoz brand.

I have to respect what Jill Whalen said (in the comments) on this subject:

That awful SEO page has pretty much made me not trust a thing I read on Wikipedia.

I can certainly appreciate what Jonathan's doing to try and make the Wikipedia page better, and he's working the system from the inside, as a trusted member and editor at Wikipedia, which is itself not only honorable, but wise. However, I can't provide much more support other than to say "good luck." It's not a battle I'd wish to fight, and the Wikipedians are adversaries I'd elect to simply ignore. Better to have the page fall into inaccuracy and disrepute and let something else take its place than to risk the article achieving even more strength and publicity and then turning into the latest rubbish when a senior editor decides that their prejudices are more important than what the experts say.

I can't tell you how relieved I was when WIkipedia re-instituted nofollow. It's a great burden off my shoulders to know that we don't need to hypocritically create an account at Wikipedia, play by their rules and follow their biases in order to have the freedom to add & remove links. I appreciate the site for what it is, and I respect folks like Jon, who make a real effort there, but I can't condone it or endorse it - to my mind, any efforts made there simply serve to legitimize what is fundamentally illegitimate.

Of course, I'm very much looking forward to some disagreement in the comments :)