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 <> 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.
> 2.
> Fae
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>

Dennis C. During
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to