Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.
Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.
Wikipedia has been one of the success stories of the internet, growing rapidly to become the de facto reference site for many people.
There are more than 4.4m pages in the English language edition alone, and it is still growing at the rate of 771 new pages every day.
How can its impact benefit digital marketers?
With Wikipedia shaking up online travel with WikiVoyage, things are already changing in this essential industry at the start of 2013. As travel becomes more and more accessable and more competitive, how marketing in this space has to become more savvy and customer centric.
But what is actually going to change and how are marketers going to shift gears in the upcoming year?
Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites and, in the eyes of some, was largely responsible for the demise of Encyclopaedia Britannica.
The good news for publishers: the market for encyclopedias is relatively small, so Wikipedia's popularity has had a relatively limited commercial impact.
The bad news for players in the travel space: the Wikimedia Foundation's entry into online travel may have broader commercial implications.
Thanks to the rise of social media, there's a mad race to measure influence and help brands harness it to their advantage. That has created an ecosystem of companies vying to prove that they can most accurately identify the social media users with the most clout.
One of the most prominent players in the space, Klout, is also one of the most controversial.
Earlier this year, Encyclopaedia Britannica announced that it would discontinue producing its annual 32-volume printed edition.
"By concentrating our efforts on our digital properties, we can continuously update our content and further expand the number of topics and the depth with which they are treated without the space constraints of the print set," Encyclopaedia Britannica's president, Jorge Cauz, explained.
For nearly 250 years, Encyclopaedia Britannica has been a household name. Once the encyclopedia of record, chances are your family had an Encyclopaedia Britannica set sitting on the bookshelf, or that you've picked up a heavy volume at school or the library.
Yesterday, however, Encyclopaedia Britannica announced that it's going all digital and will no longer be a print publisher.
There was an interesting study published this week which looked at 1,000 search terms in Google and measured the rankings for Wikipedia.org, which posed the question does Google give too much prominence to Wikipedia?
As a quick recap, Wikipedia ranked for a huge 99% of the terms (as selected with a random noun generator).
While many people may consider this an unfair bias from Google towards Wikipedia, I'm not so sure...
Wikipedia is page one for 99% of Google UK searches, according to a study of 1,000 searches using randomly generated nouns.
The research, carried out by Intelligent Positioning, raises a number of questions.
Is Google giving too much prominence to Wikipedia, or are these rankings justified?
On Wednesday several major websites, including Wikipedia and Reddit, took their services offline in protest at the proposed SOPA bill.
For Wikipedia, the self-imposed blackout actually had the affect of increasing traffic as people logged on to see what the fuss was about.
In a nutshell, SOPA is an attempt to crackdown on internet piracy by shutting down sites that host copyrighted material.
Opponents say that it goes too far, as sites that link to other sites that host pirated material can also be shutdown, and threatens free speech.
About six months ago I was trying to figure out how to get a client past Wikipedia for the term 'spread betting'.
Most people know that taking on Wikipedia for rank can be difficult because the website carries so much topic authority and a lot of people link to it. So much so that Wikipedia’s authority can trump a very popular, useful website.
In fact, one of the main rules of SEO is get a page on Wikipedia. This shows a level of Authority because you are significant enough to be listed.
Wikipedia has spent a long time defending itself against more established reference materials, but now the user-generated encyclopedia is having the opposite problem. If enough random people aren't contributing content to the site, it could lose relevance.
The company is hoping that a new redesign will help encourage people to take an active role creating and editing its content. But will readers notice?
Wikipedia may be the fifth-most-popular website in the world, but most of those viewers come to look without adding or changing any of the content on the site. And if viewers stop contributing content, Wikipedia will cease to survive.
According to the Wall Street Journal, that's not so far fetched. Wikipedia is currently hemorrhaging article editors. If Wikipedia can't get people to contribute to its voluble entries, is it possible for free user generated content to survive?