Regarding http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Captcha/help : it says "Please contact the site administrators for assistance if this is unexpectedly preventing you from making legitimate posts." but doesn't have a button to do so.
Anyway, e.g., I have images turned off in my browser, so come up with a word quiz.
Hmm, wikibooks not wikipedia? OK sorry.
On Mar 15, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Dan Jacobson wrote:
Regarding http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Captcha/help : it says "Please contact the site administrators for assistance if this is unexpectedly preventing you from making legitimate posts." but doesn't have a button to do so.
Anyway, e.g., I have images turned off in my browser, so come up with a word quiz.
Hmm, wikibooks not wikipedia? OK sorry.
You have images turned off in your browser? Are you using Netscape 4.7 or something?
There are many important features waiting for our developers to implement. Supporting 1990's era web browsing is not one of them. I suggest you use a modern browser to browse Wikimedia sites in the future.
G'day Phil,
On Mar 15, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Dan Jacobson wrote:
Regarding http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Captcha/help : it says "Please contact the site administrators for assistance if this is unexpectedly preventing you from making legitimate posts." but doesn't have a button to do so.
Anyway, e.g., I have images turned off in my browser, so come up with a word quiz.
Hmm, wikibooks not wikipedia? OK sorry.
You have images turned off in your browser? Are you using Netscape 4.7 or something?
Alternatively, he could be on dial-up. Or he could be emotionally scarred from the *many* times over the past year that Wikipedia pages have stalled in loading because images wouldn't download. Or he could simply like browsing text-only, and really, who can blame him?
There are many important features waiting for our developers to implement. Supporting 1990's era web browsing is not one of them. I suggest you use a modern browser to browse Wikimedia sites in the future.
We strive to include everyone, regardless of their intentions: neo-Nazis, paedophiles, corporate propagandists, physics kooks, road warriors, LaRouche tragics, Randroids, trolls, even Tories. But people using set-ups that differ from that of Phil Welch, well ... obviously *they're* up to no good and need to be squashed.
You need to approach Wikipedia in good faith, and the best way to establish that faith is to browse with Firefox. It's the choice of Phil Welch, Mark Gallagher, and Willy on Wheels!
Firefox! It's what's for dinner.
-- Mark Gallagher, who used to be an elitist Lynx-using asshole on Linux
On 3/19/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
You need to approach Wikipedia in good faith, and the best way to establish that faith is to browse with Firefox. It's the choice of Phil Welch, Mark Gallagher, and Willy on Wheels!
Firefox! It's what's for dinner.
A little uncalled for? Especially when you're asking someone to go to a significant amount of additional effort to support a feature which is probably required by very few people?
Now, I'm not clear on whether this Captcha is displayed every time you make any contribution, or only when registering an account, but if it's the latter, then it seems almost *everyone* could manage to get images to display once for the purpose. Blind people aside, of course.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/19/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
You need to approach Wikipedia in good faith, and the best way to establish that faith is to browse with Firefox. It's the choice of Phil Welch, Mark Gallagher, and Willy on Wheels!
Firefox! It's what's for dinner.
A little uncalled for? Especially when you're asking someone to go to a significant amount of additional effort to support a feature which is probably required by very few people?
Well, hiddenStructure doesn't work on browsers without CSS support (read: text-only browsers, probably most screen readers, most old browsers), but certain people still seem to think it's a good idea...
Now, I'm not clear on whether this Captcha is displayed every time you make any contribution, or only when registering an account, but if it's the latter, then it seems almost *everyone* could manage to get images to display once for the purpose. Blind people aside, of course.
AFAICT it would only be on registering; we've had quite a few sprees of bot-automated account creation in the past (cf. Supertroll).
G'day Steve,
On 3/19/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
You need to approach Wikipedia in good faith, and the best way to establish that faith is to browse with Firefox. It's the choice of Phil Welch, Mark Gallagher, and Willy on Wheels!
Firefox! It's what's for dinner.
A little uncalled for? Especially when you're asking someone to go to a significant amount of additional effort to support a feature which is probably required by very few people?
No. There are legitimate reasons for people to browse without images on (being blind is a rather good one), and blaming the victim of our own carelessness is *not* appropriate.
Now, I'm not clear on whether this Captcha is displayed every time you make any contribution, or only when registering an account, but if it's the latter, then it seems almost *everyone* could manage to get images to display once for the purpose. Blind people aside, of course.
People on old computers that can only run Lynx? People on poor connections? People in a work environment that enforces "no image browsing"?
Now, it may well be that we *need* to use captchas and other things that break in browsing environments other than the-best-browser-on-the-most-modern-OSes. But tt's one thing to say "gee, we're sorry you can't register an account, but we have no choice, because of vandals and that", and another entirely to say "get a better browser and stop being difficult, you jerk".
Cheers,
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse
On Mar 19, 2006, at 1:41 AM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
A little uncalled for? Especially when you're asking someone to go to a significant amount of additional effort to support a feature which is probably required by very few people?
No. There are legitimate reasons for people to browse without images on (being blind is a rather good one), and blaming the victim of our own carelessness is *not* appropriate.
There is a vast minority of people who can *never* browse with images on.
Now, I'm not clear on whether this Captcha is displayed every time you make any contribution, or only when registering an account, but if it's the latter, then it seems almost *everyone* could manage to get images to display once for the purpose. Blind people aside, of course.
People on old computers that can only run Lynx?
It's 2006. There are adolescents younger than "old computers that can only run Lynx". People who do not upgrade their computers for twelve years are not likely Wikipedia contributors. If you have an idiosyncratic preference for 1980's-era technology, don't expect us to indulge it--especially not at the cost of developer time and effort that can be used to benefit the Wikipedia in far better ways.
CLI fanatics who prefer to only run Lynx are probably a bigger constituency, but even that is an idiosyncratic preference we can't be expected to indulge.
People on poor connections?
A Wikipedia captcha page presumably loads two images: the Wikipedia logo and the captcha itself. Perfectly feasible, if sluggish, on 28.8 dialup. If your connection is slower than that, you probably wouldn't be contributing anyway.
People in a work environment that enforces "no image browsing"?
People in such a work environment have that enforced policy because they should be *working*, not goofing off on the Internet. If that's a problem, their problem is with their employer, not us.
Now, it may well be that we *need* to use captchas and other things that break in browsing environments other than the-best-browser-on-the-most-modern-OSes. But tt's one thing to say "gee, we're sorry you can't register an account, but we have no choice, because of vandals and that", and another entirely to say "get a better browser and stop being difficult, you jerk".
"Try using computing technology that was invented within the past half-decade" is not an unreasonable request. "Devote volunteer developer time and effort building features so that a small number of people using 1995-era technology can contribute to Wikipedia" *is* an unreasonable request.
All a captcha requires is images and forms. I have a Power Mac 6100 from 1994 that had Netscape 4 on it, and probably Netscape 3 before that. It supports images and forms perfectly well. If we need to use things that require, at minimum, a 12 year old computer running 8-10 year old software, we're not the ones being unreasonable. If we wrote the whole wiki in Flash or something, or used AJAX extensively, that would be silly and unreasonable.
On 3/19/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
year old software, we're not the ones being unreasonable. If we ...used AJAX extensively, that would be silly and unreasonable.
No, that would be cool. I was kind of hoping someone would do that actually. You know how on various sites, you click a "reply" button, and an edit box just appears without redrawing the entire screen? That's how Mediawiki should work when you click "edit" on a section. You know how in Gmail, you can click "compose" and the compose screen comes up instantly? That's how Mediawiki should work when you click "history" on a page.
Of course, a fall back method, such as that proposed by Gmail is only right and fitting. But AJAX would kick arse.
Steve
On Mar 19, 2006, at 3:29 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/19/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
year old software, we're not the ones being unreasonable. If we ...used AJAX extensively, that would be silly and unreasonable.
No, that would be cool. I was kind of hoping someone would do that actually. You know how on various sites, you click a "reply" button, and an edit box just appears without redrawing the entire screen? That's how Mediawiki should work when you click "edit" on a section. You know how in Gmail, you can click "compose" and the compose screen comes up instantly? That's how Mediawiki should work when you click "history" on a page.
Of course, a fall back method, such as that proposed by Gmail is only right and fitting. But AJAX would kick arse.
Well, exclusively I mean. Although AJAX is awesome, it shouldn't be required.
Philip Welch wrote:
On Mar 19, 2006, at 1:41 AM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
A little uncalled for? Especially when you're asking someone to go to a significant amount of additional effort to support a feature which is probably required by very few people?
No. There are legitimate reasons for people to browse without images on (being blind is a rather good one), and blaming the victim of our own carelessness is *not* appropriate.
There is a vast minority of people who can *never* browse with images on.
Now, I'm not clear on whether this Captcha is displayed every time you make any contribution, or only when registering an account, but if it's the latter, then it seems almost *everyone* could manage to get images to display once for the purpose. Blind people aside, of course.
People on old computers that can only run Lynx?
It's 2006. There are adolescents younger than "old computers that can only run Lynx". People who do not upgrade their computers for twelve years are not likely Wikipedia contributors. If you have an idiosyncratic preference for 1980's-era technology, don't expect us to indulge it--especially not at the cost of developer time and effort that can be used to benefit the Wikipedia in far better ways.
CLI fanatics who prefer to only run Lynx are probably a bigger constituency, but even that is an idiosyncratic preference we can't be expected to indulge.
People on poor connections?
A Wikipedia captcha page presumably loads two images: the Wikipedia logo and the captcha itself. Perfectly feasible, if sluggish, on 28.8 dialup. If your connection is slower than that, you probably wouldn't be contributing anyway.
<snip>
I've been forced to use Lynx over sluggish SSH tunnels before. With image-only captchas I'd be locked out in the cold, dark and wet.
If you've actually bothered to read [[CAPTCHA]], you'll realise that they're a pain in the arse, you insensitive clod.
On Mar 19, 2006, at 4:12 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
I've been forced to use Lynx over sluggish SSH tunnels before. With image-only captchas I'd be locked out in the cold, dark and wet.
For long periods of time? As your sole internet connectiob? I don't doubt it happens sometimes, but if it's not a regular occurrence, using Lynx over slow SSH tunnels doesn't seem like the perfect moment to go off and register a Wikipedia account.
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 10:42:29PM +1030, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
I've been forced to use Lynx over sluggish SSH tunnels before. With image-only captchas I'd be locked out in the cold, dark and wet.
If you've actually bothered to read [[CAPTCHA]], you'll realise that they're a pain in the arse, you insensitive clod.
Ah, after reading all these messages, I finally find out what you are all talking about. You are right, they are a pain in the arse. Do not go that way.
[[Bduke]]
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 10:42:29PM +1030, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
I've been forced to use Lynx over sluggish SSH tunnels before. With image-only captchas I'd be locked out in the cold, dark and wet.
If you've actually bothered to read [[CAPTCHA]], you'll realise that they're a pain in the arse, you insensitive clod.
Ah, after reading all these messages, I finally find out what you are all talking about. You are right, they are a pain in the arse. Do not go that way.
[[Bduke]]
As you say, captchas are nasty, inconvenient and user-unfriendly. However, sometimes they are the lesser of two evils. Where the other evil is automated vandalism is one of those cases.
-- Neil
On 3/19/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
You have images turned off in your browser? Are you using Netscape 4.7 or something?
Not everyone loves a face full of Goatse when they're browsing the latest vandalised pages.
There should be an alternative to the captcha, at least for people using screen readers. Perhaps something using small sound files would be easier to implement than something text-based?
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Look, you all keep saying what small number of people there is that can't use captchas, and if it's only used for regestering accounts, why not just put up like an address to the helpdesk or an email dedicated specifically for this, and say "If you can't for some reason see this image, send us an email and we'll set up an account for you". And the address, obviously.
BTW, if people use browser unable to display images, how much would an audio captcha really help (I mean, sound's way more hi-tech)?
--Oskar
On 3/19/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/19/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
You have images turned off in your browser? Are you using Netscape 4.7 or something?
Not everyone loves a face full of Goatse when they're browsing the latest vandalised pages.
There should be an alternative to the captcha, at least for people using screen readers. Perhaps something using small sound files would be easier to implement than something text-based?
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Oskar,
BTW, if people use browser unable to display images, how much would an audio captcha really help (I mean, sound's way more hi-tech)?
Some people use browsers that cannot display images because they're blind. In such cases, audio is a Good Thing, and use of images specifically designed to be unreadable to computers is not.
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Oskar,
BTW, if people use browser unable to display images, how much would an audio captcha really help (I mean, sound's way more hi-tech)?
Some people use browsers that cannot display images because they're blind. In such cases, audio is a Good Thing, and use of images specifically designed to be unreadable to computers is not.
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
An E-mail request link is pretty effective, I think. It is reasonable to assume that anyone who is intending to edit Wikipedia has some way of reading and writing text, whether directly or via assistive technology, and this will accommodate everyone who has them, without being bot-friendly.
Also, a secure but accessible sound captcha is rather more difficult to pull off than a visual captcha, since there are many more people in the world with partial hearing than partial sight.
-- Neil
On 3/20/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, if people use browser unable to display images, how much would an audio captcha really help (I mean, sound's way more hi-tech)?
Anything with sound would be a backup for people who can't use the image based one. The idea was that even if we don't want to have special systems for people who choose to use browsers like Lynx, we probably do want to cater specially for people who are blind, for example, and have to use technology like screen readers to browse WP.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
P> You have images turned off in your browser? Are you using Netscape P> 4.7 or something? I am using firefox and wwwoffle, but with costly modem line, so last year I turned images off.
P> Supporting 1990's era web browsing is not one of them.
I could have been visually impaired. OK, no big deal.
On Mar 22, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Dan Jacobson wrote:
P> You have images turned off in your browser? Are you using Netscape P> 4.7 or something? I am using firefox and wwwoffle, but with costly modem line, so last year I turned images off.
First, where are you accessing from? Reading the website at your domain it looks like Taiwan. Is it difficult for you to find high- speed access there? I was under the impression that Taiwan was rather developed so that surprises me.
Secondly, doesn't Firefox let you selectively turn on images?
P> Supporting 1990's era web browsing is not one of them.
I could have been visually impaired. OK, no big deal.
In either case, as you may be aware, we do have a help desk you can contact. It's just that this is a rare enough occurrence that it's not an effective use of developer time and effort to implement a non- image-based captcha for these occurrences.
On 3/23/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote: <snip>
In either case, as you may be aware, we do have a help desk you can contact. It's just that this is a rare enough occurrence that it's not an effective use of developer time and effort to implement a non- image-based captcha for these occurrences.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
Exactly!