Not really 😉 Well maybe, depending on your point of view…
The webmaster rules used to state that you must own the site on which your content was hosted.
However, now that it isn’t as easy, or quick, to get ranked as it once was, especially with new domains, the advantage has shifted to established sites and pages. Given that Google is showing Wikipedia results in almost every search, you’d be mad not to incorporate Wikipedia as part of your visibility strategy, wouldn’t you?
There is, of course, a catch.
The biggest catch is that you can’t control the content. Anyone can edit the content, and that may mean editing your content, and links, out. It has been suggested that some clever characters have gotten around this problem by scrambling up the Wikipedia hierarchy. Once in a position of authority, some Wikipedians appear to become more equal than others, and “open” quickly becomes “closed”, presumably under the guise of “preventing vandalism”.
Take, for instance, the SEO page. Note the very limited number of references and resources. Not to take anything away from those listed, but there are many other equally good, if not better, resources that should appear. Why so narrow? Note the amusing inaccuracies. Is Matt Cutts really a “famous SEO”? Now try and add your favourite resources, or point out other equally famous SEOs. Perhaps you are one yourself?
The code comments are curious: –No red links. Don’t add an article about yourself, either–They will be deleted quickly. —
Is the open, democratic and free Wikipedia turning into DMOZ?
However, not all pages have this problem. Some Wikipedia pages aren’t edited often, yet hold high search engine rankings. If your site is relevant, add a link. You may need to check the existence of this link on occassion as it is always possible someone else will edit it out, for whatever reason. Nirvana is finding the high-traffic Wikipedia page that doesn’t receive much attention from Wikipedia editors. Try to stay relevant and below radar.
Here’s a guide on how to edit Wikipedia.