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=histor... 2. https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/1180847863854706689/photo/1
Fae
Hi Fæ,
I've requested it's taken down using https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals so it should be updated soon.
Thanks, RhinosF1
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 15:20, Fæ faewik@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
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&action=histor... 2. https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/1180847863854706689/photo/1
Fae
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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@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
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&action=histor... 2. https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/1180847863854706689/photo/1
Fae
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I remember hearing why this happens, and that it is a concern to Google, but I don’t remember the technical details. They want to work with us to fix this issue. I will reach out and get more information. Thanks for flagging!
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 8:57 AM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
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@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
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&action=histor...
Fae
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Dennis C. During _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I've had a few successes in the past with getting Google to remove vandalised versions of pages from their cache/main search results using https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals?pli=1 - in this case it appears in the knowledge panel but not the cached copy of the page, so it might be more tricky. I clicked the feedback link, then the Wikipedia extract and wrote that it was a vandalised revision... Don't know if they actually read that stuff though.
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 16:56, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
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@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
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&action=histor...
Fae
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Dennis C. During _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org