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 "problem" before we measure the extent of the problem, but a viable compromise is very easy captchas. Spammers vary a great deal in sophistication but if we figure that any sophisticated enough to do any OCR are capable of finding and downloading existing public exploits of ours, then a block capital impact font captcha is equally easy for them, equally difficult for unsophisticated spammers and much easier for sighted humans. Luke On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Arthur Richards <aricha...@wikimedia.org>wrote: > 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 reCaptcha is > not open source (even though it supports free culture) nor is it something > we can host on our own servers. > > -- > Arthur Richards > Software Engineer, Mobile > [[User:Awjrichards]] > IRC: awjr > +1-415-839-6885 x6687 > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
