Should Wikipedia make Page 1 of Google for 99% of Searches?

[djbaxter]

Wikipedia Appears on Page 1 of Google for 99% of Searches [Study]
by Danny Goodwin, Search Engine Watch
February 13, 2012

Google loves Wikipedia. Everyone knows it, and many aren?t that happy about it, especially when some of their poorly written content outranks higher-quality websites on the same subject. But did you know Wikipedia pages appear on Page 1 of Google for 99 percent of searches?

Beyond that staggering number, Wikipedia is the No. 1 result on Google for 56 percent of searches, while 96 percent of searches saw Wikipedia in one of the top five positions. Only eight keywords (Mail, news, trainers, national, sweets, wardrobe, phone, flight) didn?t appear on Page 1.

Read more...

 

[Joseph Ratliff]

The short answer, no they shouldn't.

Just like a blog post, Wikipedia should only get page 1 when the individual article page (like a blog post page) ranks for a keyword term IMO. There should be NO authority given just because they are Wikipedia.

But, I've never admitted to being an SEO expert either.

 

[bigcat1967]

I personally don't like it.

However, if their information is the best - then by all means, they should be on the first page nearly all the time.

I like what Joseph wrote here:

Just like a blog post, Wikipedia should only get page 1 when the individual article page (like a blog post page) ranks for a keyword term IMO. There should be NO authority given just because they are Wikipedia.

I agree. I thought Google judges on just one page - not the site.

However, I too, am not a SEO expert.

 

[djbaxter]

I think part of the issue is that Google considers Wikipedia to be an authority site, despite the obvious fact that it's editors and contributors are generally more likely to be hobbyists than experts and that numerous pages contain factual errors.

Find a topic on which you ARE an expert and I don't doubt you'll find many dubious statements or claims. Often, it's not so much that they are WRONG but that they are not RIGHT either.

 

[derekh]

Personally I think that the main reason they rank so well for any given keyword is that so many other sites link to Wikipedia to boost their own authority in the eyes of Google. This would have the same result which has Adobe ranking for the term "click here".

 

[jcorkern]

I read an interview with Matt Cutts on this very issue just a week or so ago, and he stated that these algo changes makes it where the little guy can compete, and if they did not intervene, that nobody would outrank wikipedia, amazon and so forth, so based on this, the sheer authority is why he stated that the algo takes into account the content and site structure to give others a chance to compete other than based on links alone or mostly.

I tried to find it, and if I do, I will post a link to it.