On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Luke Welling WMF
lwell...@wikimedia.org wrote:
That was not the end of the problem I was referring to. We know our
specific captcha is broken at turning away machines. As far as I am aware
we do not know how many humans are being turned away by the difficulty of
On 22/01/13 18:43, David Gerard wrote:
On 22 January 2013 17:37, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote:
Per the previous comments in this post, anything over 1% precision
should be regarded as failure, and our Fancy Captcha was at 25% a year
ago. So yeah, approximately all, and our captcha is well known to
Luke, we do not know how many humans are being turned away by the
difficulty: actually we sort of do, that paper tells this as well. It's
where their study came from, and gives recommendations on what captcha
techniques are best for balancing efficacy with difficulty for humans.
We don't seem
I don't know if we are talking at cross purposes, or if I missed it, but
this paper:
http://elie.im/publication/text-based-captcha-strengths-and-weaknesses
does not try to answer my question.
What I want to know is *How many humans get turned away from editing
Wikipedia by a difficult captcha?*
On 22/01/13 01:44, Bawolff Bawolff wrote:
Given that there are algorithms that can solve our captcha presumably they
are mostly preventing the lazy and those that don't have enough knowledge
to use those algorithims. I would guess that text on an image without any
blurring or manipulation would
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
On 22/01/13 01:44, Bawolff Bawolff wrote:
Given that there are algorithms that can solve our captcha presumably
they are mostly preventing the lazy and those that don't have enough
knowledge to use those algorithims. I would guess that text on an image
without any blurring
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 10:13 +0100, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
A simple thing that could be done is to introduce localized captchas on
non-Latin wikis (just remember that not everyone has the appropriate
keyboard).
For the records, this is covered in
Per the previous comments in this post, anything over 1% precision
should be regarded as failure, and our Fancy Captcha was at 25% a
year
ago. So yeah, approximately all, and our captcha is well known to
actually suck.
Maybe you'll just use recaptcha instead of fancycaptcha?
On 22 January 2013 17:37, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote:
Per the previous comments in this post, anything over 1% precision
should be regarded as failure, and our Fancy Captcha was at 25% a year
ago. So yeah, approximately all, and our captcha is well known to
actually suck.
Maybe you'll just
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:37 AM, vita...@yourcmc.ru wrote:
Maybe you'll just use recaptcha instead of fancycaptcha?
/me gets popcorn to watch recaptcha flame war
There has been discussion on this list in the past about the use of
recaptcha, but it has generally ended in a down-vote because
The problem is that reCaptcha (a) used as a service, would pass
private user data to a third party (b) is closed source, so we can' t
just put up our own instance. Has anyone reimplemented it or any of
it? There's piles of stuff on Wikisource we could feed it, for
example.
OK, then we can take
Even ignoring openness and privacy, exactly the same problems are present
with reCAPTCHA as with Fancy Captcha. It's often very hard or impossible
for humans to read, and is a big enough target to have been broken by
various people.
I don't know if it's constructive to brainstorm solutions to a
On 21/01/13 08:04, Chris Grant wrote:
Not sure about enwiki, but from my experience with hosting smaller wiki's
CAPTCHA's are pretty useless (reCAPTCHA, FancyCAPTCHA, some custom ones).
The spambots keep on flooding through.
I've found its much more effective to just use the AbuseFilter.
--
Luke Welling WMF писал 2013-01-22 21:59:
Even ignoring openness and privacy, exactly the same problems are
present
with reCAPTCHA as with Fancy Captcha. It's often very hard or
impossible
for humans to read, and is a big enough target to have been broken by
various people.
It's very good to
It's very good to discuss, but what are the other options to minimize
spam?
(maybe I know one: find XRumer authors and tear their arms off... :-))
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Luke, sorry for reiterating, but «brainstorm solutions to a problem
before we measure the extent of the problem» is wrong: it's already been
measured by others, see the other posts...
Nemo
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
That was not the end of the problem I was referring to. We know our
specific captcha is broken at turning away machines. As far as I am aware
we do not know how many humans are being turned away by the difficulty of
it. It's a safe bet that it is non-zero given the manual account requests
we get,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Luke Welling WMF lwell...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
That was not the end of the problem I was referring to. We know our
specific captcha is broken at turning away machines. As far as I am aware
we do not know how many humans are being turned away by the difficulty of
On 2013-01-22 3:30 PM, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Luke Welling WMF lwell...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
That was not the end of the problem I was referring to. We know our
specific captcha is broken at turning away machines. As far as I am
aware
we do not
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Bawolff Bawolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
Someone should write a browser addon to automatically decode and fill in
captchas for blind users. (Only half joking)
Don't joke, I have a blind relative who's screen reader does just that
(simple captchas only).
There
There is a Firefox extension to get past the captchas...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Graham Pearce graha...@jazi.net
Date: Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Why are we still using captchas on WMF sites?
To: John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
Yes, I have
On 21 January 2013 07:56, Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote:
at all implies that some spambots are blocked at least?
Yes, but to count as successful it would have to block approximately
all, I'd think.
I mean, you could redefine something that doesn't block all spambots
but does
Not sure about enwiki, but from my experience with hosting smaller wiki's
CAPTCHA's are pretty useless (reCAPTCHA, FancyCAPTCHA, some custom ones).
The spambots keep on flooding through.
I've found its much more effective to just use the AbuseFilter.
-- Chris
On 2013-01-21 3:56 AM, Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 07:48 +, David Gerard wrote:
On 21 January 2013 05:13, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/20/2013 04:22 PM, David Gerard wrote:
The MediaWiki captcha is literally worse than
On 21 January 2013 08:43, Bawolff Bawolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
Does
http://elie.im/publication/text-based-captcha-strengths-and-weaknessescount
as evidence? (Copied and pasted from the mailing list archives)
404 :-) Correct link:
And to be more explicit, quoting the paper in case someone really has
doubts: «we deem a captcha scheme broken when the attacker is able to
reach a precision of at least 1%». With our FancyCaptcha we are/were at
25 % precision for attackers, so yes, it's officially broken, and it's
been so
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:00 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I mean, you could redefine something that doesn't block all spambots
but does hamper a significant proportion of humans as successful,
but it would be a redefinition.
It's not a definition, it's a judgment.
And whether or
Given that there are algorithms that can solve our captcha presumably they
are mostly preventing the lazy and those that don't have enough knowledge
to use those algorithims. I would guess that text on an image without any
blurring or manipulation would be just as hard for those sorts of people to
On 01/21/2013 03:00 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 21 January 2013 07:56, Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote:
at all implies that some spambots are blocked at least?
Yes, but to count as successful it would have to block approximately
all, I'd think.
That's dubious. Blocking all
On 22 January 2013 04:28, Matthew Flaschen mflasc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 01/21/2013 03:00 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Yes, but to count as successful it would have to block approximately
all, I'd think.
That's dubious. Blocking all spambots is not the goal of any CAPTCHA.
The goal is to
The MediaWiki captcha is literally worse than useless: it doesn't keep
spambots out, and it does keep some humans out.
(I was just reminded of this by a friend I lured into joining
Wikivoyage - who can see and is highly literate, but found the captcha
really troublesome.)
Why are we still using
On 20 January 2013 21:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The MediaWiki captcha is literally worse than useless: it doesn't keep
spambots out, and it does keep some humans out.
Not to mention this, which delighted Tom Morris at an editathon he was running:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:22 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The MediaWiki captcha is literally worse than useless: it doesn't keep
spambots out, and it does keep some humans out.
(I was just reminded of this by a friend I lured into joining
Wikivoyage - who can see and is highly
This question is something we've also been asking ourselves on the E3
team,
as part of our work on account creation. I think we all agree that
CAPTCHAs
are at best a necessary evil. They are a compromise we make in our user
experience, in order to combat automated attacks.
That's kind of
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Bawolff Bawolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
This question is something we've also been asking ourselves on the E3
team,
as part of our work on account creation. I think we all agree that
CAPTCHAs
are at best a necessary evil. They are a compromise we make in
* David Gerard dger...@gmail.com [2013-01-20 22:23]:
The MediaWiki captcha is literally worse than useless: it doesn't keep
spambots out, and it does keep some humans out.
I can't speak for WMF sites, but on my small wiki, it *does* keep some
spambots out. Not all of them, but it is still quite
On 01/20/2013 04:22 PM, David Gerard wrote:
The MediaWiki captcha is literally worse than useless: it doesn't keep
spambots out, and it does keep some humans out.
I don't see how the spambot statement is true. Do you have evidence for it?
Also, it's one of the nicer CAPTCHAS around here, it's
On 21 January 2013 05:13, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/20/2013 04:22 PM, David Gerard wrote:
The MediaWiki captcha is literally worse than useless: it doesn't keep
spambots out, and it does keep some humans out.
I don't see how the spambot statement is true. Do you have
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 07:48 +, David Gerard wrote:
On 21 January 2013 05:13, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/20/2013 04:22 PM, David Gerard wrote:
The MediaWiki captcha is literally worse than useless: it doesn't keep
spambots out, and it does keep some humans out.
39 matches
Mail list logo
