Reply #15: On what basis do you say the Wikipedia articles don't "deserve" their ranking?

[Jim Lane]

I think that a key factor in the Google ranking is the overall traffic to the website. Wikipedia is one of the ten most-visited sites on the Web, so it ranks high.

If you think the ranking is too high, what deserves to be higher? To take the first example in the OP, "Lexus", I on Google. The first hit was lexus.com, and the second was a specific page in the lexus.com site. was third. There followed, in order:
* a link to a Google News result with more than 7,000 separate entries for stories mentioning Lexus;
* "Local business results for Lexus near Derwood, MD";
* reviews of Lexus models at thecarconnection.com;
* sites for two particular Lexus dealerships (Englewood, New Jersey and Manhattan);
* three auto-related sites with discussions of particular Lexus models; and
* clublexus.com, a site for enthusiasts and owners.


A general reader who searches for "Lexus" should certainly be shown the company's website(s) first. After that, I think the Wikipedia article is the best choice. It gives an overview and history of the company, recounts some notable events, has subsections for such specific topics as "Design and technology" and "Marketing", gives links to other relevant Wikipedia articles that have more detail on specific aspects of the topic, and includes external links to company websites and to the "Lexus" page on Dmoz (the Open Directory Project). Which of those other Google hits would you rank above the Wikipedia article?

I admit I'm biased because I edit Wikipedia. Even if I weren't an active editor, though, I'd probably be biased in favor of a nonprofit website, and Wikipedia is the only nonprofit site in the top ten of all websites.