Full Version: How to Use Wikipedia Entries for Lead Gen - 6 Steps to 18% Higher ... - MarketingSherpa. ...
•How to Use Wikipedia Entries for Lead Gen - 6 Steps to 18% Higher ...
MarketingSherpa.com (subscription), RI -22 minutes ago
SUMMARY: Wikipedia’s heavy traffic makes it a tempting lead-generation channel for B-to-B marketers. But you need to follow some strict user guidelines, ...
View the article
Oh, Good God...
How much longer will the Attensa article stay unmolested by the likes of Durova, Calton, JzG, and the self-conflicted Jehochman?
How long before the creator (User:Mrtriviamaniacman) of that article has his head on a wiki-pike? How long before his contributions are all looked at with the evil eye?
How long before the 13 external links from Wikipedia to Attensa.com are pared down to 2 or 1?
This is a very, very useful article, but they have to be kidding to think that this is not going to destroy their very efforts! They must be smokin' some good stuff up there in Portland.
Best quote from the article:
How much longer will the Attensa article stay unmolested by the likes of Durova, Calton, JzG, and the self-conflicted Jehochman?
How long before the creator (User:Mrtriviamaniacman) of that article has his head on a wiki-pike? How long before his contributions are all looked at with the evil eye?
How long before the 13 external links from Wikipedia to Attensa.com are pared down to 2 or 1?
This is a very, very useful article, but they have to be kidding to think that this is not going to destroy their very efforts! They must be smokin' some good stuff up there in Portland.
Best quote from the article:
QUOTE
Following Wikipedia’s guidelines, Niesen and his team first decided that no Attensa employees would write articles. Instead, they handed over the task to members of their external marketing agency who were experienced Wikipedia users and registered editors. (NOTE: Other agencies who have created articles on behalf of clients have reported that their entries were deleted as a violation of Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest policy.)
The "external marketing agency" is Anvil Media.
Their website says:
Somebody, please explain to me how this is different than the Jimbo-banned efforts of Wikipedia Review and the Jimbo-banned efforts of Kellen Communications? Is it their use of the verb "achieve", rather than "write"?
Their website says:
QUOTE
Since Wikipedia is the most popular wiki in the world and one of the most popular (and visible) resources on the Web, develop a wiki-specific strategy, whether to achieve a company listing or enhance an existing listing.
Somebody, please explain to me how this is different than the Jimbo-banned efforts of Wikipedia Review and the Jimbo-banned efforts of Kellen Communications? Is it their use of the verb "achieve", rather than "write"?
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 12:15pm) 
The "external marketing agency" is Anvil Media.
Their website says:
Somebody, please explain to me how this is different than the Jimbo-banned efforts of Wikipedia Review and the Jimbo-banned efforts of Kellen Communications? Is it their use of the verb "achieve", rather than "write"?
Their website says:
QUOTE
Since Wikipedia is the most popular wiki in the world and one of the most popular (and visible) resources on the Web, develop a wiki-specific strategy, whether to achieve a company listing or enhance an existing listing.
Somebody, please explain to me how this is different than the Jimbo-banned efforts of Wikipedia Review and the Jimbo-banned efforts of Kellen Communications? Is it their use of the verb "achieve", rather than "write"?
I'd explain it to you Greg, except that 1) it's inexplicable, and 2) even if there were a logical explanation, the mean-spirited WR mods wouldn't suffer us the courtesy of having a conversation about it.
Could a moderator move this to "News Worth Discussing"?
Why is nobody responding to this? Isn't anyone on the Wikipedia side concerned about an article like Attensa for Outlook?
Why is nobody responding to this? Isn't anyone on the Wikipedia side concerned about an article like Attensa for Outlook?
A helpful tip that the article left out is "How do I get past another Wikipedia editor who questions the notability of my topic?"
Why, that's simple.
You just remove the notability flag, and use an edit summary that says you have "added notability".
<facepalm>
Why, that's simple.
You just remove the notability flag, and use an edit summary that says you have "added notability".
<facepalm>
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 2:46pm)
Could a moderator move this to "News Worth Discussing"?
Done!QUOTE
Why is nobody responding to this? Isn't anyone on the Wikipedia side concerned about an article like Attensa for Outlook?
I would assume that since the base-product RSS reader is freeware, they're all downloading it to see if they like it first.
Also, it's important to remember that Attensa was founded in 2005 in Portland, OR by co-founders Craig Barnes, Eric Hayes and Tim Brown. (You see, on Wikipedia, you have to specifically state that your organization was founded by "co-founders," for obvious reasons - you can't just say the company was "founded by Craig Barnes, Eric Hayes and Tim Brown." And as everyone knows, it securely and intelligently manages and routes information flow throughout business organizations. What's more, Attensa is building a team of talented, hard working, fun loving people who are building exciting RSS products and services that deliver on the promise that less is more.
And of course, anyone with a user name like User:Mrtriviamaniacman couldn't possibly be trying to fool the AGF'ing WP community into thinking he is, in fact, a trivia maniac-man, could he? When in fact he's actually a PR "flack"? Surely not!
On the other hand, if one draws attention to this sort of thing whenever it's discovered, it might seem like more like an unusual case than it actually is. That could conceivably help explain the relatively small number of responses during the first few hours.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 3:09pm)
You just remove the notability flag, and use an edit summary that says you have "added notability".
D'oh! Article deleted as "blatant advertising" by User:NawlinWiki.
Here's a tip - if you are using wikipedia for adverts - don't get it featured in an article explaining how wikipedia can be used for adverts. 
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 5:05pm)
Not only that, but JzG and Blood Red Sandman went to town on the account, the articles, and *BAM!* the links went from 13 to 2.
JUST AS I FREAKIN' PREDICTED, and JzG didn't even send me out a "thank you".
So, now JzG himself is editing by proxy for a banned user. What do we do now?
Greg
P.S. This write-up is a bit funny from today's perspective.
Wow, Anvil Media was fostering a whole nest of sockpuppets, it would seem.
Tell me, how does something this preposterously unlikely to go over well, manage to get floated after the experience of Wikipedia Review, Kellen Communications, and all of Jehochman's and Durova's search engine conference appearances?
Mindboggling.
Tell me, how does something this preposterously unlikely to go over well, manage to get floated after the experience of Wikipedia Review, Kellen Communications, and all of Jehochman's and Durova's search engine conference appearances?
Mindboggling.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 10:22pm)
Tell me, how does something this preposterously unlikely to go over well, manage to get floated after the experience of Wikipedia Review, Kellen Communications, and all of Jehochman's and Durova's search engine conference appearances?
There's never really been any question that the real "problem" with Wikipedia Review was the fact that it was all being done out in the open, i.e., non-surreptiously. It makes sense to some extent - if you allow one person to do whatever-it-is out in the open, then the next thing you know, people are telling you that "everyone's going to want to do it," even if the business model involved is such that only a small number of people will actually want to do it, much less succeed at it.
As long as it's done surreptitiously, they can maintain the pretense that they've got the situation under control. Each time they "catch" someone, they can point to it and say "the system is working," even though there are probably 10 instances of people getting away with it for every one they root out. (Maybe more!)
Maintaining the pretense is the paramount concern/objective, at least from a PR perspective. From an established user's perspective, the paramount concern is to maintain WP as a place where people, places, things, ideas, and organizations can be bashed anonymously with little or no risk of reprisal. And of course, allowing "the corporate agenda" to "gain a foothold" threatens that too, right?
My comments are awaiting moderation, but the head of Anvil and the marketing guy from Attensa have each written their own blog posts about this event. They are blaming me for their unfortunate demise. I've had e-mail exchanges with the Anvil man, and he now understands that I only made more swift what was coming down on them like a ton of bricks in the next 6 or 12 hours anyway.
Anvil (Kent Lewis) blog post about "WikiGate"
Attensa (Scott Niesen) blog post about "Attensa and Wikigate"
My comments invite them to come learn more about the real Wikipedia on Wikipedia Review.com. Is everyone here agreed that had I sat on my hands and stayed quiet about the Search Engine Marketing article, just about the exact same fate was in store for their Wikipedia content and accounts? Or, did I really single-handedly bring this upon Attensa and Anvil Media?
My unmoderated comment for Kent Lewis' blog:
Anvil (Kent Lewis) blog post about "WikiGate"
Attensa (Scott Niesen) blog post about "Attensa and Wikigate"
My comments invite them to come learn more about the real Wikipedia on Wikipedia Review.com. Is everyone here agreed that had I sat on my hands and stayed quiet about the Search Engine Marketing article, just about the exact same fate was in store for their Wikipedia content and accounts? Or, did I really single-handedly bring this upon Attensa and Anvil Media?
My unmoderated comment for Kent Lewis' blog:
QUOTE
Kent, thanks for exchanging e-mails with me. I’m sorry about the role I played in expediting the removal of your firm’s content from Wikipedia; but believe me, had I sat on my hands, the same fate was facing you within the next 24 hours.
You and your readers should visit Wikipedia Review.com, where we’ve been exposing the hypocrisy of Wikipedia rule sets and their de facto policy of “truth and openness gets you bannedâ€. It really does need to stop, but I’m not exactly sure Wikipedia CAN be changed. It is truly a massive, multi-player defamation board, disguised as an encyclopedia.
Last month, I ran for the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees seat that was open. Over 120 Wikipedia editors ranked me #1 out of a roster of 15 candidates. About 450 ranked me as one of their top 3 choices. I still came in last place.
Wikipedia culture has a systemic violation of their own “neutral point of view†policy. That is, the one point of view they will not tolerate is the thoughtful, reasoned, commercial/paid point of view!
Another sub-policy underlying all Wikipedia rules: Jimmy Wales is the only person entitled to make money off of Wikipedia.
The sooner the world realizes this complete hypocrisy within Wikipedia, the sooner we’ll figure out new ways to subvert it.
I wish you and your company the best of luck in rebounding from this very predictable setback.
You and your readers should visit Wikipedia Review.com, where we’ve been exposing the hypocrisy of Wikipedia rule sets and their de facto policy of “truth and openness gets you bannedâ€. It really does need to stop, but I’m not exactly sure Wikipedia CAN be changed. It is truly a massive, multi-player defamation board, disguised as an encyclopedia.
Last month, I ran for the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees seat that was open. Over 120 Wikipedia editors ranked me #1 out of a roster of 15 candidates. About 450 ranked me as one of their top 3 choices. I still came in last place.
Wikipedia culture has a systemic violation of their own “neutral point of view†policy. That is, the one point of view they will not tolerate is the thoughtful, reasoned, commercial/paid point of view!
Another sub-policy underlying all Wikipedia rules: Jimmy Wales is the only person entitled to make money off of Wikipedia.
The sooner the world realizes this complete hypocrisy within Wikipedia, the sooner we’ll figure out new ways to subvert it.
I wish you and your company the best of luck in rebounding from this very predictable setback.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 25th July 2008, 2:45pm)
As you know I am trying to document instances of gross COI on Wikipedia elsewhere (Greg knows where).
It would be useful to have a short summary of this with links. WR is a good place to originate these threads but they are incomprehensible to an outsider without more background. E.g. who are the companies, a brief summary of any important things linked-to, that sort of thing.
You all have to read the comments at Kent's blog:
3 Comments
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Guy Chapman
July 25th, 2008
at 12:31am
How are companies to correct wrong information? SImple: they can change it, or they can comment on the discussion page, or they can use the “contact us†links to email the volunteers who handle complaints and issues. Companies do this all the time.
What they can’t do is control the content of “their†article. That’s because it’s not “their†article, it’s Wikipedia’s. You ask what kind of service Wikipeida offers; the answer is, it offers a service to our readers in providing neutral content on significant subjects. It does not offer a directory service, a service to company marketers or SEOs. This is pretty clear in our policies and guidelines.
My best piece of advice to companies is, if you don’t want your article deleted, don’t let your marketing people near it. Hiostorically, marketing people have proven unable to write anything much other than marketing blurb, and that fails policies and gets nuked.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gregory Kohs
July 25th, 2008
at 6:18am
Kent, thanks for exchanging e-mails with me. I’m sorry about the role I played in expediting the removal of your firm’s content from Wikipedia; but believe me, had I sat on my hands, the same fate was facing you within the next 24 hours.
You and your readers should visit Wikipedia Review.com, where we’ve been exposing the hypocrisy of Wikipedia rule sets and their de facto policy of “truth and openness gets you bannedâ€. It really does need to stop, but I’m not exactly sure Wikipedia CAN be changed. It is truly a massive, multi-player defamation board, disguised as an encyclopedia.
Last month, I ran for the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees seat that was open. Over 120 Wikipedia editors ranked me #1 out of a roster of 15 candidates. About 450 ranked me as one of their top 3 choices. I still came in last place.
Wikipedia culture has a systemic violation of their own “neutral point of view†policy. That is, the one point of view they will not tolerate is the thoughtful, reasoned, commercial/paid point of view!
Another sub-policy underlying all Wikipedia rules: Jimmy Wales is the only person entitled to make money off of Wikipedia.
The sooner the world realizes this complete hypocrisy within Wikipedia, the sooner we’ll figure out new ways to subvert it.
I wish you and your company the best of luck in rebounding from this very predictable setback.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gregory Kohs
July 25th, 2008
at 8:22am
Note, Guy Chapman re-wrote an article in October 2006 that I had originally written about [[Arch Coal]]. There was a big debate founded on the premise that I couldn’t have possibly written a neutral article about a coal-mining company if I were paid by them. Even in light of that, an independent, unpaid editor of Wikipedia is the one who scraped the article into Wikipedia, not me. I let the debate rage on and on. Then I let everyone know that Arch Coal had no idea who I was, that they had never contracted me to author anything. The article was nothing more than an experiment to test and see how long it would take an article about a Fortune 1000 firm to get into Wikipedia from my GFDL website.
Now, here’s where it gets really interesting. Later, in January 2008 — 15 months after the whole Arch Coal article battle — Guy Chapman went back to Wikipedia and, using his admin tools, deleted from public view the fact that the article had originally been written and attributed to Wikipedia Review.com. This had the effect of trashing the GFDL license obligations, and made Guy Chapman’s version the “original content of record†on Wikipedia.
This would be somewhat defensible if Guy Chapman re-wrote the article completely from scratch, without help from my article. Indeed, on another website, he stated that he had authored the new article “ab initioâ€. Then, I and others pointed out that he wrote “his†new article in about 26 minutes, complete with infobox mark-up, reference citations, and several substantial paragraphs of text. This would be an amazing feat — especially for someone who was still engaged in the “article for deletion†debate WHILE he was writing “ab initioâ€.
In the end, it was painfully obvious that Guy Chapman had been caught in a big lie. He even created grammatical mistakes as he rearranged my original subjects and predicates, but failed to mop up the resulting subject-verb disagreement. His formatting of the managerial names in the Infobox was exactly identical to the unusual way that I had arranged them. This caused him to admit that “maybe†he had used the existing Infobox over again, which caused everyone to laugh at him and ask if he really knew what “ab initio†meant.
Now Guy Chapman is here, advising a marketing professional on how to ethically engage Wikipedia. And I am (fortunately) here to point out what a hypocritical and ballsy move that is for a proven liar to execute on another man’s blog.
It would be alarming, if it weren’t so dad-blamed funny!
Please join the discussion. Someone could mention Guy Chapman's edits that one day, out of the blue, to the Wikipedia article about Rachel Marsden.
QUOTE
3 Comments
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Guy Chapman
July 25th, 2008
at 12:31am
How are companies to correct wrong information? SImple: they can change it, or they can comment on the discussion page, or they can use the “contact us†links to email the volunteers who handle complaints and issues. Companies do this all the time.
What they can’t do is control the content of “their†article. That’s because it’s not “their†article, it’s Wikipedia’s. You ask what kind of service Wikipeida offers; the answer is, it offers a service to our readers in providing neutral content on significant subjects. It does not offer a directory service, a service to company marketers or SEOs. This is pretty clear in our policies and guidelines.
My best piece of advice to companies is, if you don’t want your article deleted, don’t let your marketing people near it. Hiostorically, marketing people have proven unable to write anything much other than marketing blurb, and that fails policies and gets nuked.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gregory Kohs
July 25th, 2008
at 6:18am
Kent, thanks for exchanging e-mails with me. I’m sorry about the role I played in expediting the removal of your firm’s content from Wikipedia; but believe me, had I sat on my hands, the same fate was facing you within the next 24 hours.
You and your readers should visit Wikipedia Review.com, where we’ve been exposing the hypocrisy of Wikipedia rule sets and their de facto policy of “truth and openness gets you bannedâ€. It really does need to stop, but I’m not exactly sure Wikipedia CAN be changed. It is truly a massive, multi-player defamation board, disguised as an encyclopedia.
Last month, I ran for the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees seat that was open. Over 120 Wikipedia editors ranked me #1 out of a roster of 15 candidates. About 450 ranked me as one of their top 3 choices. I still came in last place.
Wikipedia culture has a systemic violation of their own “neutral point of view†policy. That is, the one point of view they will not tolerate is the thoughtful, reasoned, commercial/paid point of view!
Another sub-policy underlying all Wikipedia rules: Jimmy Wales is the only person entitled to make money off of Wikipedia.
The sooner the world realizes this complete hypocrisy within Wikipedia, the sooner we’ll figure out new ways to subvert it.
I wish you and your company the best of luck in rebounding from this very predictable setback.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gregory Kohs
July 25th, 2008
at 8:22am
Note, Guy Chapman re-wrote an article in October 2006 that I had originally written about [[Arch Coal]]. There was a big debate founded on the premise that I couldn’t have possibly written a neutral article about a coal-mining company if I were paid by them. Even in light of that, an independent, unpaid editor of Wikipedia is the one who scraped the article into Wikipedia, not me. I let the debate rage on and on. Then I let everyone know that Arch Coal had no idea who I was, that they had never contracted me to author anything. The article was nothing more than an experiment to test and see how long it would take an article about a Fortune 1000 firm to get into Wikipedia from my GFDL website.
Now, here’s where it gets really interesting. Later, in January 2008 — 15 months after the whole Arch Coal article battle — Guy Chapman went back to Wikipedia and, using his admin tools, deleted from public view the fact that the article had originally been written and attributed to Wikipedia Review.com. This had the effect of trashing the GFDL license obligations, and made Guy Chapman’s version the “original content of record†on Wikipedia.
This would be somewhat defensible if Guy Chapman re-wrote the article completely from scratch, without help from my article. Indeed, on another website, he stated that he had authored the new article “ab initioâ€. Then, I and others pointed out that he wrote “his†new article in about 26 minutes, complete with infobox mark-up, reference citations, and several substantial paragraphs of text. This would be an amazing feat — especially for someone who was still engaged in the “article for deletion†debate WHILE he was writing “ab initioâ€.
In the end, it was painfully obvious that Guy Chapman had been caught in a big lie. He even created grammatical mistakes as he rearranged my original subjects and predicates, but failed to mop up the resulting subject-verb disagreement. His formatting of the managerial names in the Infobox was exactly identical to the unusual way that I had arranged them. This caused him to admit that “maybe†he had used the existing Infobox over again, which caused everyone to laugh at him and ask if he really knew what “ab initio†meant.
Now Guy Chapman is here, advising a marketing professional on how to ethically engage Wikipedia. And I am (fortunately) here to point out what a hypocritical and ballsy move that is for a proven liar to execute on another man’s blog.
It would be alarming, if it weren’t so dad-blamed funny!
Please join the discussion. Someone could mention Guy Chapman's edits that one day, out of the blue, to the Wikipedia article about Rachel Marsden.
I almost feel sorry for Scott Niesen, the head of Marketing for Attensa. He writes in his blog:
Wikipedia is theoretically about respect for expertise, openness and integrity.
Wow. I think the Wikipedia Review needs to assemble an LLP, and we do a quarterly "road show" in different metro markets, inviting corporate Marketing heads to come and learn about MARKETING AND THE REAL WIKIPEDIA. I think they'd easily pay $495 a head for a half-day session including breakfast or lunch.
I'm half serious about this. Is anyone of the same mindset to join me?
Wikipedia is theoretically about respect for expertise, openness and integrity.
Wow. I think the Wikipedia Review needs to assemble an LLP, and we do a quarterly "road show" in different metro markets, inviting corporate Marketing heads to come and learn about MARKETING AND THE REAL WIKIPEDIA. I think they'd easily pay $495 a head for a half-day session including breakfast or lunch.
I'm half serious about this. Is anyone of the same mindset to join me?
Please Digg it.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 25th July 2008, 8:47am)
I almost feel sorry for Scott Niesen, the head of Marketing for Attensa. He writes in his blog:
Wikipedia is theoretically about respect for expertise, openness and integrity.
Wow. I think the Wikipedia Review needs to assemble an LLP, and we do a quarterly "road show" in different metro markets, inviting corporate Marketing heads to come and learn about MARKETING AND THE REAL WIKIPEDIA. I think they'd easily pay $495 a head for a half-day session including breakfast or lunch.
I'm half serious about this. Is anyone of the same mindset to join me?
Not me. I have a visceral dislike of the idea of seminars marketed to tell people how to market. My feeling being that if the person knew how to market, they'd be marketing something else more profitably than "marketing seminars."
This is related to the huge number of people selling investor-advice. If these people are such market gurus, how is it that they spend the backbreaking work to write articles on how to invest, and sell those, instead of doing the same stockmarket-analysis work, and then saving the writing time, and merely making money BY INVESTING as per their own recommendations?? One has the feeling that most of these people are traders who either lost their shirts, or (in a minority of cases) traders who realized that their good run on the Bull market was a matter of luck and that they now should get out into treasuries, and "get a real job," before they inevitably feel the bite of the adjusting Bear.
Beware of people who want to sell you master-plans for ANY type of money-making machine. If the machine actually worked, why would they need money from YOU?
Nobody would buy plans for a gold-making machine. Duh. 
And yet people fall for an only slightly more complicated scam, again and again and again and again.... 
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 25th July 2008, 12:56pm)
Beware of people who want to sell you master-plans for ANY type of money-making machine. If the machine actually worked, why would they need money from YOU?
Nobody would buy plans for a gold-making machine. Duh. And yet people fall for an only slightly more complicated scam, again and again and again and again.... Then we re-tool it as a "networking workshop"! Hob-nob with experts and cohorts from your industry!
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 25th July 2008, 10:31am)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 25th July 2008, 12:56pm)
Beware of people who want to sell you master-plans for ANY type of money-making machine. If the machine actually worked, why would they need money from YOU?
Nobody would buy plans for a gold-making machine. Duh. And yet people fall for an only slightly more complicated scam, again and again and again and again.... Then we re-tool it as a "networking workshop"! Hob-nob with experts and cohorts from your industry!
Sure, as long as "your industry" is not running seminars for professionals. It gets endlessly recursive at some point, like a pyramid scheme, with the only people making any money on the whole business being the few guys at the top. Everybody else just moves the money upward while they wait to cash in.
Hey Greg. You want to be self-empowered? Go through my self-empowerment seminar. At the next level you can learn to be a self-empowerment trainer, and run your own seminars to teach people to be self-empowered, for which they will naturally pay you. And each year, I have an update course you can take on training, to keep your trainers' certificate.
And this works! Look at all the neat new cars and houses and lifestyle I bought, just as soon as I learned the secret of self-empowerment.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 25th July 2008, 11:14am)
Ah yes, Don Lapre . Making Money Secrets of a decade ago (your video) is now, er, bankrupt.
Lapre is now onto making money with the "greatest vitamin in the world" 
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 25th July 2008, 9:47am)
I'm half serious about this. Is anyone of the same mindset to join me?
I would, but with my baggage, I doubt you'd accept. Also, I'm kinda busy with my baggage.
But I would, if I wasn't.
Form an LLC not an LLP. That's what the intel guys do. Fight fire with fire, you know.
An excellent follow-up blog post has appeared.
The Funnelholic “How-to†guide to getting jacked by Wikipedia
The Funnelholic “How-to†guide to getting jacked by Wikipedia
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Wed 23rd July 2008, 11:28am)
How to Use Wikipedia Entries for Lead Gen &mdash 6 Steps to 18% Higher E-rections…
View the article
And here I thought this was about to give me the Leads-Up on what the Latest Generation is ↑² … but it wasn't about the Leaden-I'd Wiki-Plumbum Generation much atoll …
Jon
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th July 2008, 1:10pm)
An excellent follow-up blog post has appeared.
The Funnelholic “How-to†guide to getting jacked by Wikipedia
And now Funnelholic has gone and interviewed a WIKIPEDIA TROLL for even more insight into paid editing within Wikipedia.
Wiki-palooza Part III: The world of wikis and how b2b marketing can win in this game
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.