That's been a very complex issue. Henrique will bring more context into
For now, it's worth mentioning the Portuguese Wikipedia community has been
working on this antivandalism project
order to build alternative measures to deal with vandalism and
inappropriate edits with a very small portion of the community reverting
edits - considering the short and mid terms.
They are already aware that even the return of emergency CAPTCHA won't be a
definite measure (lasting no more than one year, as per what was agreed)
and are handling to create other ways of preventing inappropriate content
through new approaches.
I actually believe that's a good idea and am happy to see there has been a
lot of work on that - out of comfort zone, but also conscious of the
current limitations in place.
On 6 July 2013 20:22, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Asaf Bartov, 06/07/2013 23:51:
To be precise, the facts do not show that. They show the CAPTCHA is
responsible for significantly fewer good-faith
contributions from casual
editors. That is is or is not a "bad idea", however, is a subjective
judgment, based on one's weighing of multiple factors.
Evidently, large parts of the PTWP community remain convinced that the
downsides of not having the CAPTCHA (easier vandalism? admin workload? --
I'm not really following that debate) outweigh the upsides.
It's worth noting, among other things, that the vote in question ended
just before the stats were released.
You (and I)
may well disagree, but let's recognize that
this depends on our _judgment_
Whether or not an editing community's mandate for self-governance should
extend to the right to make such a fundamentally anti-wiki measure as the
emergency CAPTCHA feature a permanent one is debatable, of course.
Wikimedia-l mailing list