No Links For You!

I wrote the Wikipedia page on Link bait a few months ago — only to have it mercilessly edited and destroyed by a bunch of editors who naively see every blog as unfit to be quoted.  Let's see.  Which group actually understands the concept of link bait best?  Could it be bloggers?  Ding!  I quoted:

1. Matt Cutts (
2. Rand Fishkin (
3. Aaron Wall (
4. Me in My Book (

In fact, the original content was based off drafts of my book.  I know blogs are sometimes full of misinformation; but in a field like search marketing, you are not going to find current information in a stuffy academic marketing book.  And the same very sources were good enough for the editors of my book.

In Wikipedia all sources were removed.  The examples of link bait were also removed, despite being extremely useful examples.

So, the result now is that all of the information is unattributed and vague.

I spent quite a bit of time formulating the beginnings of that page.  Why should I, or anyone contribute if editors enforce bureaucratic rules that hamper the quality of the content?  Everyone, for the sake of God, please edit my contribution back to something useful?  Don't get the Fourth Reich of Link Nazis take over Wikipedia.  Thanks.


Tell an amigo:
  • Sphinn
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook

Related posts:
A Little Link Bait Experiment QuadsZilla's latest link bait experiment is going to read like...
Wikipedia Declares Defeat A few weeks ago (before I got sick), Wikipedia announced...
Link Bait and its Electronic Cousin Aaron Wall of Seo Book states here that many sites...
Does a Link to an Excluded Page on a Site Have any Link Value? Suppose a webmaster excludes a duplicated page on his site...
Forget Traditional SEO! Why Good Link Bait is Worth $50K Traditional SEO is dead.  Gone are the days when we...