That's funny.Don't rely on Wikipedia as being a proof source for anything. Most of the articles are well written, but it is a wiki, which means that there is a lot of opinion mixed with the content. No one proofs it for accuracy.
An early study conducted by IBM researchers conducted in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects" and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".
An investigation reported in the journal Nature in 2005 suggested that for scientific articles Wikipedia came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".
On October 24, 2005, The Guardian published a story titled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" where a panel of experts were asked to review seven entries related to their fields, giving each article reviewed a number designation out of ten points. Scores ranged from 0 to 8, but most received marks between 5 to 8. The most common criticisms were:
- Poor prose, or ease-of-reading issues (3 mentions)
- Omissions or inaccuracies, often small but including key omissions in some articles (3 mentions)
- Poor balance, with less important areas being given more attention and vice versa (1 mention)
The most common praises were:
- Factually sound and correct, no glaring inaccuracies (4 mentions)
- Much useful information, including well selected links, making it possible to "access much information quickly" (3 mentions)
PC Pro magazine (August 2007) asked experts to compare 4 articles (a small sample) in their scientific fields between Wikipedia, Britannica and Encarta. In each case Wikipedia was described as "largely sound", "well handled", "performs well", "good for the bare facts" and "broadly accurate." One article had "a marked deterioration towards the end" while another had "clearer and more elegant" writing, a third was assessed as less well written but better detailed than its competitors, and a fourth was "of more benefit to the serious student than its Encarta or Britannica equivalents." No serious errors were noted in Wikipedia articles, whereas serious errors were noted in one Encarta and one Britannica article.
In October 2007, Australian magazine PC Authority published a feature article on the accuracy of Wikipedia. The article compared Wikipedia's content to other popular online encyclopedias, namely Britannica and Encarta. The magazine asked experts to evaluate articles pertaining to their field. Wikipedia was comparable to the other encyclopedias, topping the chemistry category.
In December 2007, German magazine Stern published the results of a comparison between the German Wikipedia and the online version of the 15-volume edition of Brockhaus Enzyklopädie. The test was commissioned to a research institute (Cologne-based WIND GmbH), whose analysts assessed 50 articles from each encyclopedia (covering politics, business, sports, science, culture, entertainment, geography, medicine, history and religion) on four criteria (accuracy, completeness, timeliness and clarity), and judged Wikipedia articles to be more accurate on the average (1.6 on a scale from 1 to 6, versus 2.3 for Brockhaus with lower = better). Wikipedia's coverage was also found to be more complete and up to date, however Brockhaus was judged to be more clearly written, while several Wikipedia articles were criticized as being too complicated for non-experts, and many as too lengthy.
List goes on.
No, what you're talking about is unethical marketing - not SEO.ethical SEO practices are more an issue of deceiving customers into thinking they are going to see a particular result
Well, that's your opinion - but irrelevant to this thread.I don't think of keyword stuffing as being unethical. It is a form of spamming the search engines and it is foolish.