--- Comment #10 from Amgine <amgine.sae...@gmail.com> ---
Very brief, as I am heading to sleep; I will answer more completely tomorrow:
(In reply to Aalekh Nigam from comment #8)
> >As a reminder, we've talked a lot about non-text captchas above, but the
> >text >captcha solutions can be still considered:
> >* wikicaptcha with Wikisource OCR (bug 32695) could do as well as reCAPTCHA
> >>which according to Burzstein et al. was broken but still 24 times less than
> >>Wikimedia's (fancy)captcha;
> >* "just" making a few hundreds language-specific dictionaries and improving
> >the >text images generation to be more similar to Google's (as per same
> >Burzstein et >al.) would improve fancycaptcha dramatically and solve bug
> >5309 for Wikimedia >at least.
> Earlier did analyzed the project from the text captcha point of view, but
> found following Cons with it:
> *)It provides almost the same solution as ReCaptcha which is currently 24%
> times easily breakable.
There are additional problems with ReCaptcha as noted in comment #2, which
Fancy Captcha obviates.
> *)Words used are mostly English and latin hence not multilingual.
I am currently working on parsing wiktionary dumps by language. The estimated
term pool will be > 20 million in 1300+ languages; not all of these will be
useful as some are not represented by scripts (e.g. American Sign Language) and
others are not represented in easily available fonts (e.g. Bhasa dialects).
> *)Provides the same user experience as provided by recpatcha, hence not user
Strongly agree. However, it is popular amongst WMF devs.
> *)I thought it as much of replacement of ReCaptcha, but it does not offers
> solution to an effective captcha.
Keep in mind that tools to solve text-based captcha are focused on solving
ReCaptcha; other distortion models are as easily solved in theory but in
practice are not.
<wave @ EmuFarmers>
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