Amgine <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |

--- Comment #2 from Amgine <> ---
First, this is a subject near and dear to my heart, and I've produced a couple
captchas for ConfirmEdit over the years, and tried every existing module. The
top three WMF modules, imo, are:

* Asirra is currently the best, bar none. On one of the properties I managed
which had reasonably high traffic, and which had been bot honey pot at one
point (which was why it ended up under my management) was experiencing
approximately 300 asirra failures per hour, for 3+ years, with 7 incidence of
spam - of which 6 were humans and the last we couldn't determine if it were
human or bot. However, it exposes users to MicroSoft's data collection without
an informed consent.
* Questy captcha is second, beating recaptcha. When the question pool is
regularly cycled with locally unique questions this system is excellent. Its
drawbacks are, in order of highest to lower cost, the cultural/language
specificity of easily answered questions, the maintenance cost in generating
unique local questions, and the lack of analysis of failures (which questions
fail most often, which questions are answered by spambots, etc.)
* ReCaptcha, by Google, which falls into the 24% failure rate class. In
addition to its high failure rate, ReCaptcha scripts 'donate' cpu cycles from
users to processing Google's book scanning efforts, as well as expose users to
Google's data collection processes, neither with informed consent.

General comments regarding the GSOC proposal:
* None of these modules appear to have considered accessibility prior to the
implementation. Particularly for people with visual impairments which do not
require audio options, 'effects' type modules may present an inordinately high
* For the 'odd one out' style, consider a text such as "Select the [category]"
or "Select all that are not [category]". The category will almost always be a
plural noun, which makes the message more easily translated. The message
"Select the images that is different in this group" is ambiguous, unless there
is only one image which is different.
* In general, I would suggest you avoid clip art. While clip art attempts to be
trans-lingual and -cultural, it often is not. E.g. a steadily reducing
population has ever used a wood-and-graphite pencil; many cultures have never
had them.
* While I like the image rotation conceptually, too many images may have more
than one appropriate 'up'. Is a plane 'up' if it flying horizontally ( -> ), or
if it is pointing at the top of the screen ( ∆ )? Imagine this character
pointing any direction: ✈︎ (AIRPLANE Unicode: U+2708 U+FE0E, UTF-8: E2 9C 88 EF
B8 8E) Indexing enough images to be viable is possible, but expensive.

I would suggest you focus on a two-part module:
* A categorical odd one out, with indexed ('tagged') images drawn from Commons
(possibly via Wikidata api, about which I know nothing.)
* An image tagger ("Please give three categories for this image:") with images
drawn from random or targeted categories on Commons, which will be used to
expand your pool of indexed images.

I would strongly encourage you to plan your module to be implemented on 3rd
party wikis. Figure out how to get them to build indexes for WMF, because there
are far more mediawiki users outside of WMF than inside it.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Wikibugs-l mailing list

Reply via email to