Hoi,
The point of spending time is exactly to prevent vandalised content to
remain available in the search engines. The synchronisation of the changes
in Wikipedia and the reflection in search engines is beneficial to us both.
Vandalism is always more voluminous then we would like to have it. Here we
are discussing the existence of our vandalism once it has *already* been
solved in Wikipedia. I do not see how our community would be opposed to
having a solution for this issue.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 18 October 2010 15:08, Daniel Mietchen <daniel.mietchen(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Q
<overlordq(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/17/2010 7:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> If you understand the issue, you would know who decides what qualifies
as
> vandalism. It is exactly the same people who
already decide what
vandalism
is.
So basically you want anybody who visits the website to be able to tell
google to fast-track reindex a page and you think google will go for
that?
It seems a bit strange to me to expect Google (or anyone external) to
devote more effort to vandalized than to useful Wikipedia content.
I also disagree with the diagnosis in the above-mentioned blog post,
which reads "So where does the problem lie? With the search engine
information refresh rate."
In my view, the problem lies primarily with Wikipedia, and
specifically with vandalism being too voluminous and too visible to
the public. Technical solutions for both issues exist, and those
addressing the second kind have the potential to be accepted by the
community.
Daniel
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mietchen
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l