Isn't it statistically inevitable that some offensively vandalized version
of some WP article will happen to be the version that Google caches? I
suppose they don't refresh the cache very often. Weekly? I know Google
doesn't make it easy to complain effectively about such blunders.
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:20 AM Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Can someone explain how a vandalized version of the
Wikipedia article
about Henry Kissinger that was only visible for a rather short time
several days ago, is still being promoted in Google searches
today?[1][2]
The "zombie sex" vandalism was only visible for a few minutes, quickly
fixed by admin El C and the page indefinitely protected. Yet it is
this four day old version that Google searches were using in
preference to either the current version or older versions with more
long term public visibility. In the age of real smart Google AI and
active mirrors of Wikipedia, how is this still our reality? It does
not give me confidence that politically vandalized articles
potentially for the benefit of state sponsored agents are not also
being promoted in searches for several days, regardless of how
fleetingly they are visible on Wikipedia and speedily corrected by
volunteers.
It would be good to have a simple explanation of any improvements to
how this works, and our Wikimedia projects pragmatic relationship with
Google and other search engines.
Thanks!
Links
1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&action=histo…
2.
https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/1180847863854706689/photo/1
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Dennis C. During