Recently, I've begun to see massive problems in the search and online community's definitions of linkbait. It boils down to two completely unique meanings for the term:

Linkbait Definition #1 - "Link-Worthy, Linkerati-Targeted Content"
This is the way I typically use the term linkbait. It refers to a piece of content one creates (for one's own site or another's) with the goals of launching it to a broad or niche web community who will find value in the material and write about it/link to it through social media sites, news portals and blogs. It's the online equivalent of creating viral-worthy, marketable content.

Examples:

• Pronet's Beginner's Guide to Digg
• Todd's Search Marketing Manifesto
• This wondrous theoretical computer science cheat sheet (sadly in PDF)

Linkbait Definition #2 - "Attracting Link Attention with Controversy"
A lot of folks seem to suggest that certain things people write on the web or create on their sites are "just for the linkbait" - these can include negative or derogatory pieces, inflammatory material, and anything else that designed to incite or provoke a reaction from one or many online communities or blogs.

Examples:

• This Piece from Dave Pasternack - horribly lacking logic of any kind
• Michael Gray saying Google pushes a Republican agenda (although he's self-deprecating about it, which makes it much easier to stomach)
• DaveN's post on Vanessa...

I never thought I'd say it, but I think there's a need to create two separate terms here so we can, as a group, determine which one is being referenced. The problem gets even more complex when there's an overlap between the two, as is the case with something like the Matt Cutts facts page or Chris Hooley's Drinkbait.

What to do? What to do...

UPDATE: Brian Clark wrote about this same problem last month in his history of linkbait. It would seem the stigma of "baiting" is somewhat pervasive.