By Mike Wood published December 1, 2015

How to Do Backlinks in Wikipedia the Right Way


Over the years, Wikipedia has become a minefield for marketers, often causing more trouble than it’s worth. However, Wikipedia is still effective and can be used by content marketers to both assist with SEO and contribute to the mission of the world’s largest encyclopedia.

Content marketers often misunderstand how backlinks work in Wikipedia. They think that if the topic is relevant, simply adding a link to the “external link” section of a page is good enough. Not so.

Adding a link to Wikipedia is like surgery – if not done correctly it can cause many issues, including having your added domain listed as spam and banned from Wikipedia.

It is so difficult to obtain and maintain a Wikipedia link that I ceased offering this service a long time ago. However, knowing that many marketers are going to do it anyway, I wanted to share some best practices on Wikipedia backlinks. If done correctly, it can still be a great benefit to your SEO.

Going from do-follow to no-follow

First, let’s look at how backlinks have changed in Wikipedia over the years. When Wikipedia launched in 2001, backlinks were all “do-follow” – created for SEO purposes. With Google’s heavy weighting of Wikipedia and its backlinks, marketers were quick to pick up on the SEO effect.

Wikipedia editors quickly caught on that spam was aplenty. The community took massive steps to help curb spam, including changing links to “no-follow,” which have less SEO effect, and creating a black list to block domains they considered spam.

Now, even though no-follow backlinks have less effect on SEO than do-follow backlinks, Wikipedia backlinks are still some of the most coveted in the marketing industry. This is because Google gives heavy weight to Wikipedia links despite the fact that they’re no-follow.

Identifying where to link

I will share what really works in securing Wikipedia backlinks, based on my professional experience.

  • Do not simply look for citation-needed entries. Wikipedia automatically searches for and scrutinizes completed citation-needed templates. If the added links do not contribute to the entry’s quality, they will be removed and potentially blacklisted.
  • Find entries in dire need of cleanup and expansion. In these cases, you have a better opportunity to contribute quality content – expanding the knowledge shared on that topic and contributing to Wikipedia’s goal of freely sharing knowledge.

To find an article needing more quality information, go to the all-articles-to-be-expanded page. More than 1,800 articles fell into this category in one month this fall. Explore more than one month for an endless supply of pages that could benefit from your input.

Knowing the types of links

Now that you know where to find places for your links, let’s look at the best-suited types of links:

  • Make sure the links come from a reliable source. Wikipedia’s rules on reliable sources are lengthy. Basically, don’t use self-published sources (press releases, etc.) and make sure that the linked website employs fact-checkers to ensure accuracy of content.
  • Check whether Wikipedia already considers the source as reliable. See if the cited website has its own article. For instance, AdAge has its own Wikipedia page, which increases the likelihood that links from its site will be accepted as a reliable source.
  • See if your cited website has been used as a backlink. Go to the search box and type in the URL that you want to check. A site that has been used numerous times also increases the chances of it being accepted as a reliable source.

In this screenshot, you can see that AdAge has been used 301 times as a reference in Wikipedia. You also can see the top result is AdAge’s own Wikipedia page.


Click to enlarge

  • Make sure the link is more than a landing page. A link to a landing page without information to support the content is considered spam by Wikipedia editors.
  • Link directly to the relevant content page. The link must have content that supports the information you are adding. For instance, if you are adding information about advertising, you cannot simply link to your website’s home page as the authoritative source. You must connect to the exact page that supports the content, similar to how you would cite sources in a research paper or industry study.

Putting it together

Now it’s time to add the link. To do things correctly, you must contribute to the encyclopedia – adding more links than just the backlink you want to include.

Here is an example of how it works:

Let’s say you want to add a link from The Motley Fool to the Big King sandwich article on Wikipedia. The link relates to the advertising of the Big King in 2014 – that section is empty in the entry. Adding the link not only enables you to place the link you want but it also contributes positively to Wikipedia.


Click to enlarge

You also have a USA Today citation about advertising of the Big King – although you’re not looking to secure a backlink to USA Today, incorporating it adds credibility to the entry.

Now, you must write the content for the entry that is supported by the citations:

“In 2014, Burger King reintroduced the Big King as direct competition to McDonald’s Big Mac. (USA Today citation) Part of its advertising campaign was that the beef used on the sandwich was bigger than that of the Big Mac. (The Motley Fool citation)”

By incorporating two credible sources into the added information, you increase the chances that your intended link (The Motley Fool) will survive scrutiny. I also suggest adding even more content to the entry to truly enhance the value of your contribution.

TIP: Follow the proper format to add links. I go in depth into how to do this with a three-step guide for adding citations. Make sure to know what you are doing – adding a link incorrectly can lead to an editor accusing you of spamming even when you aren’t.

In conclusion, I cannot reiterate it enough – do not simply link from Wikipedia for the sake of linking. Make sure to do it correctly and contribute along the way. Introducing content that adds quality to the encyclopedia is likely to help your link last a long time and greatly benefit your SEO efforts. Remember that there is NEVER a guarantee with Wikipedia so any process you employ is not foolproof, just a best practice.

I would love to hear about your experiences with Wikipedia linking.

Want to receive more great advice from Michael Wood and other experts on how to create and deliver relevant content? Subscribe to the CMI newsletter and we’ll deliver it to you firsthand.

Cover image by SplitShire via

Author: Mike Wood

Mike Wood is an online marketing expert and owner of He specializes in content writing, brand management, and professional Wikipedia editing. Wood is a regular contributor to many online publications that have included AllBusiness Experts, Business Insider, Business2Community, and Social Media Today. You can follow him on Twitter @Legalmorning.

Other posts by Mike Wood

Join Over 200,000 of your Peers!

Get daily articles and news delivered to your email inbox and get CMI’s exclusive e-book Get Inspired: 75 (More) Content Marketing Examples FREE!

  • Greg Strandberg

    This is a bad strategy, and let me tell you why.

    You don’t write content to get links on Wikipedia – the content you wrote has to be good enough to get a link.

    I have at least 2 Wikipedia links and they ensure I have evergreen content on my site and that I make about $100 a month from Google AdSense. That’s all because of Wikipedia links that I had no hand in creating.

    What I did do was write about some key personalities in Montana, people that had not been written up that way on Wikipedia before. Someone noticed this and linked to my site.

    That’s the appropriate way to do Wikipedia link-building. The way presented in this article is wrong.

    • Michael Wood

      Thanks for reading Greg.

      Based on your comment, I believe you missed the entire point of the article which is not to backlink from Wikipedia at all. This article is intended for those who fail to take such advice (and most people do).

      Thanks again for the comment.

  • Hitesh Parekh

    Good read and I agree. What I like about wikipedia is not the organic backlink but how Google acknowledges it on the knowledge graph.

  • Pankaj Dhawan

    Getting a link from wiki is not piece of cake. If some strategy can get a you a backlink from such an authoritative site, hello, why not?

  • Gregory Kohs

    I remember when Jimmy Wales ordered the Wikimedia Foundation developer to switch on “nofollow”, and how curious I was to learn that several thousand back-links to Jimbo’s for-profit site Wikia were exempt from “nofollow” because they were formatted with an “inter-wiki” markup. When this was pointed out (how it was unfair, if not hypocritical, to advantage his own site), accounts that pointed it out to Jimbo were hastily blocked from the site by his minions, so that the whistleblowing process could be snuffed out.