Page MenuHomePhabricator

CAPTCHA doesn't work for people with visual impairments
Open, NormalPublic

Tokens
"Heartbreak" token, awarded by Elitre."Heartbreak" token, awarded by Volker_E."Heartbreak" token, awarded by JMinor."Heartbreak" token, awarded by jrbs."Love" token, awarded by Quiddity."Like" token, awarded by Scoopfinder."Love" token, awarded by Thibaut120094."Love" token, awarded by He7d3r.
Assigned To
Authored By
tstarling, Feb 3 2006

Description

No convenient method is offered to allow blind people to submit external links to Wikimedia sites.

As per the W3C recommendation:
"An explicitly inaccessible access control mechanism should not be promoted as a
solution, especially when other systems exist that are not only more accessible,
but may be more effective, as well. It is strongly recommended that smaller
sites adopt spam filtering and/or heuristic checks in place of CAPTCHA."

Discussions and other reports about CAPTCHAs that anybody should be aware of before working on this:

Challenges:

  1. Removing captcha all-together proves that it invites too much abuse for our communities?
  2. External services like Google etc violate our privacy policies
  3. Audio captchas present a language barrier problem (next to the language script barrier of normal captchas)
  4. Writing our own solution is prohibitively expensive (involves solving an open problem in computer science) and captcha weakness for computers might make the whole thing a wasted effort pretty quickly.

Alternatives:

  1. Disable alltogher and deal with the fallout by improving abusefilters etc..
  2. Escalate to some sort of Phone number verification or phone audio message verification (privacy issues and possibly only aggravates the accessibility issue)
  3. Add message to make it clearer where to request manual account creation by existing user
  4. Make a separate 'request an account' queue for these users, for prioritised account-request processing

URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/
See Also: T49705: "Can't see the image? Request an account" should be an optional parameter

Details

Reference
bz4845

Event Timeline

There are a very large number of changes, so older changes are hidden. Show Older Changes
Restricted Application added subscribers: Florian, Aklapper. · View Herald TranscriptDec 29 2015, 2:55 PM
Base added a subscriber: Base.Dec 8 2016, 1:07 AM
jrbs added a subscriber: jrbs.Feb 20 2017, 9:13 PM
jrbs added a comment.Feb 20 2017, 9:15 PM

This task is now 11 years old - is there any appetite to make movement here? A blind potential user has now emailed into OTRS asking for advice, and it'd be good to allow volunteers to respond positively.

jrbs added a subscriber: dpatrick.

Pinging @dpatrick as this probably now falls under Security's remit as well. (The new project tag may not be accurate, do please edit ruthlessly.)

This doesn't just effect addition of external links, it also prevents new users from registering, requiring them to use ACC to request an account. Is this still being looked at as an issue?

TheDJ added a comment.Jul 10 2017, 7:58 PM

@Cameron11598 There is no one currently assigned to this, so no one is taking it upon him to fix this at this moment. It's also not something that any team at the foundation is responsible for, so it's not likely to be prioritized from that end.

Unfortunately it's not an easy thing to fix :(

@TheDJ Well thats disappointing but thanks for the information. :(

TheDJ added a comment.Jul 11 2017, 8:34 AM

Another person requesting about audio captcha's
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=790035476#Audio_alternative_for_CAPTCHA

I was thinking about this last night. Using Google etc, is of course 'evil' and not allowed by any of our standards. At the same time, we don't have the resources to rebuild what Google has already built. But perhaps we could offer a Google Captcha as a secondary option ? So that when you encounter our captcha, there is a button to take you to a google Captcha for those who cannot read/use our captcha ? It's not ideal, but it's better than not fixing this for another 11 years.

Elitre added a subscriber: Elitre.Aug 25 2017, 10:52 AM
Restricted Application added a subscriber: jeblad. · View Herald TranscriptAug 25 2017, 10:52 AM

WCAG 2.0 SC 1.1.1 requires non-text CAPTCHAs to have "alternative forms of CAPTCHA using output modes for different types of sensory perception are provided to accommodate different disabilities"

Ejs-80 added a subscriber: Ejs-80.Dec 21 2018, 10:39 PM
Cameron11598 added a comment.EditedJan 2 2019, 9:40 PM

Just trying to nudge this to see if it is being worked on yet? On a side note its been 12 years and this issue still hasn't really been addressed...

Nick raised the priority of this task from Low to Normal.Jan 3 2019, 11:27 AM
Nick added a subscriber: Nick.Jan 3 2019, 11:30 AM

I've raised the priority of this task from Low to Normal - clearly fixing an issue which is preventing users with sight issues from registering and thereby participating in our projects is not a 'low' priority task in any conceivable situation.

On a related note, given WMF has now started to abandon the old and highly restrictive policy of only ever using free and open source software, alternative CAPTCHA services can now be considered.

Bawolff added a subscriber: Bawolff.Jan 3 2019, 3:18 PM

On a related note, given WMF has now started to abandon the old and highly restrictive policy of only ever using free and open source software, alternative CAPTCHA services can now be considered.

[citation needed]

On a related note, recaptcha isn't just a concern about FOSS, there are also concerns about privacy and security of allowing a third party to run JS on our sites.

Would giving the user the ability to switch to a math based captcha if they are unable to read the regular captcha be a possible solution?

TheDJ added a comment.EditedJan 4 2019, 9:54 AM

One of the alternatives I have seen suggested that I think might be feasible, is a captcha fallback using verification via phone number.

That would require the user entering his international phone number, then WMF using a commercial service like twillio and using their text to speech to sent a code to a user in a phone call (English only), which the user then needs to enter in another textfield for verification. That would be less private (but only for a very specific group of people). It would allow us to block automated services if needed and twillio also has Answering machine detection.

That involves clearing a commercial service within WMF for this specific use case (as well as its recurring monthly costs), privacy policy adaptations for the phone number data (at a 3rd party), a new extension for making the api requests and verifying the codes, keeping a blacklist of phone numbers that have been abusive, rate limiting, db changes, security review etc, testing it etc.. aka easily 3-4 months with several involved resources and teams.

Would giving the user the ability to switch to a math based captcha if they are unable to read the regular captcha be a possible solution?

Computers are good at math. So no.

WereSpielChequers raised the priority of this task from Normal to High.Jan 5 2019, 5:07 PM

I have corrected the priority to high. Obviously something that excludes such a large group of people needs to be fixed as a matter of priority. It shouldn’t be all that difficult to do a workaround such as MzMcbride suggested. If everyone who verifies an email address was exempted from such capchas then not only do we solve a major disability barrier, we also fix a problem that is a barrier for all new Wikipedians.

jrbs lowered the priority of this task from High to Normal.EditedJan 5 2019, 5:30 PM

I have corrected the priority to high. Obviously something that excludes such a large group of people needs to be fixed as a matter of priority. It shouldn’t be all that difficult to do a workaround such as MzMcbride suggested. If everyone who verifies an email address was exempted from such capchas then not only do we solve a major disability barrier, we also fix a problem that is a barrier for all new Wikipedians.

Please note that "priority" on Phabricator does not mean "importance", it just reflects how tasks are being handled by the teams in question. See this for more information: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Project_management#Priority_levels

As such, I'm lowering this back to Normal, since no work has been committed for this. While I agree this is an important task to work on, marking this as "high" is misleading as it implies work has been put aside for it, which it has not.

So the question is why has work not been put aside to fix an issue of recognised high importance that will, 13 years after first being raised, resolve an issue that results in us discriminating against people who are (in many jurisdictions) a legally protected minority?

So the question is why has work not been put aside to fix an issue of recognised high importance that will, 13 years after first being raised, resolve an issue that results in us discriminating against people who are (in many jurisdictions) a legally protected minority?

Because it basically involves solving an open problem in computer science which despite more than 13 years of people attempting to solve it, there aren't really any good solutions to.

Okay then another possible (temporary solution) ACC's request an account is where we occasionally shunt requests for those using screen readers; could we make that more prominent and perhaps provide an OTRS queue so that ACC folks can create the accounts quicker or a specialized queue for ACC so those requests so they can be prioritized in some way? For the record the current oldest request at ACC is from 2018-11-19 and there are over 1800 pending requested accounts.

I'm just spitballing ideas here because what we currently have isn't equitable nor does it really work from a pragmatic point of view.

an open problem in computer science which despite more than 13 years of people attempting to solve it, there aren't really any good solutions to.

(For those more interested in audio captchas, Google's audio captcha can be circumvented with a ~90% success rate: http://uncaptcha.cs.umd.edu/ )

@Nick: A reference for your statement above is still welcome.

Would it be possible to at least provide directions on how users can register for an account? Below are some of the methods that have been listed

  • EN.Wikipedia - Refers to ACC
  • META.Wikimedia - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Captcha ( Unfortunately this may inconvenience users with limited vision or using text-based or speech-based browsers. At the moment we do not have an audio alternative available. Please contact the site administrators for assistance if this is unexpectedly preventing you from making legitimate actions. ) Note: provides no way to contact administrators.
  • Commons.Wikimedia - Same as Meta
  • Wikidata - Same as Meta but actually provides a link to the list of admins
  • De.Wikipeida - Referral to OTRS team
  • Wiktionary - Same as Wikidata
  • WikiNews - Sends them to IRC
  • Wikiversity - Sends to a list of deletions for a non-existant page ( https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Request_an_account )
  • Wikisource - Same as Wikiversity ( https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Request_an_account )
  • Wikibooks - Sends you to the equivalent of WP:AN
  • Simple.Wikipedia - Sends you to a help desk page

Some of these are decent (my personal favorites being En.Wikipedia, Wikinews and De.Wikipedia. But there is no reason there shouldn't be directions on Wikiversity or Wikisourse on who to contact. :/

I didn't go through every project but would it be possible to find out how many projects actually don't have a help page for this?

jrbs awarded a token.May 6 2019, 6:32 PM
Abbe98 added a subscriber: Abbe98.Jul 5 2019, 12:06 PM

I just posted the following to [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees ]:

13 years

On 03 February 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our CAPTCHA system discriminates against blind people. See phabricator T6845. This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990 ) and leaves Wikipedia open to the possibility of discrimination lawsuit.

In particular, National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_the_Blind_v._Target_Corp. ) was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.

So why, after 13 years of inaction, do we not have a set of software requirements (including a testable definition of "done"), a schedule with milestones and updates, and budget and staffing information for solving this?

And no, I will not accept any proposed "solution" that lacks the name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that say how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

Regarding hiring someone else to fix this, I would very much like the idea to be given careful consideration rather than being dismissed out of hand. The WMF is great at running an encyclopedia. Nobody else, anywhere on earth, even comes close. However, running an encyclopedia does not magically confer the ability to create high-quality software, and the WMF has a pretty dismal track record in this area (Examples: Visual Editor, Flow, 13 years of failing to making an obvious but boring improvement to accommodate blind people.) I realize that this will anger some people, but why should it? Olympic-level athletes don't get angry when you tell them that their athletic ability does not magically confer the ability to repair automobiles or do astronomy.

Comments from phabricator:

  • ''"This doesn't just effect addition of external links, it also prevents new users from registering, requiring them to use ACC to request an account."''
  • ''"There is no one currently assigned to this, so no one is taking it upon him to fix this at this moment. It's also not something that any team at the foundation is responsible for, so it's not likely to be prioritized from that end."''
  • ''The only thing stopping us from having an audio captcha is that nobody's put the work into implementing it yet." --Source: Chief MediaWiki developer as of 2008
  • ''"So the question is why has work not been put aside to fix an issue of recognised high importance that will, 13 years after first being raised, resolve an issue that results in us discriminating against people who are (in many jurisdictions) a legally protected minority?"''
  • Guy Macon, 08 July, 2019
SQL added a subscriber: SQL.Jul 10 2019, 1:07 AM
Fae added a subscriber: Fae.Jul 10 2019, 4:21 AM
TheDJ updated the task description. (Show Details)Jul 10 2019, 1:52 PM

I've updated the description a little bit, to more accurately reflect the current status.

TheDJ updated the task description. (Show Details)Jul 10 2019, 2:11 PM
CKoerner_WMF renamed this task from CAPTCHA doesn't work for blind people to CAPTCHA doesn't work for people with visual impairments.Jul 11 2019, 7:34 PM
CKoerner_WMF updated the task description. (Show Details)

I'm diving on this grenade until or unless someone else takes it over. I'm very interested in using our Captcha system for doing micro-curation tasks (both for visual and non-visual contributions), either for training machine-learning models, or for more heuristic one-off projects. I'll try to get more educated on the topic, and hopefully give more information in the coming weeks.

TheDJ updated the task description. (Show Details)Jul 16 2019, 1:43 PM
TheDJ updated the task description. (Show Details)Jul 16 2019, 1:45 PM

I am having a bit of a quandary here.

I see "I'll try to get more educated on the topic, and hopefully give more information in the coming weeks" at [ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T6845 ] but nothing since.

I am seeing the same thing at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James#13_years ]: "working on it" then nothing.

The cynic in me says that if I keep patently waiting nothing will happen and after a while I will be posting a "14 years" complaint, but if I start making noise about hearing nothing I will be embarrassed to discover that someone has been furiously working on this and watch as they change the Wikimedia software in a way that solves everything -- 15 minutes after I hit send on my complaint.

I am left with these known facts:

  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to assign an employee or contractor the task of fixing this problem.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to budget a single dollar towards fixing this.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to provide an estimate of how long it is expected to take to fix this.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to write any requirements for fixing this. ("Requirements" is geek talk for "please define what 'done' is and how we will recognize that whoever is working on this is done".)
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to make a plan for an independent third party (which in this case means "someone with a visual impairment accessing Wikipedia with a screen reader") to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

So I ask the community: how long is a reasonable time for me to patently wait without any updates before going back to complaining about WMF inaction?

I am having a bit of a quandary here.
I see "I'll try to get more educated on the topic, and hopefully give more information in the coming weeks" at [ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T6845 ] but nothing since.
I am seeing the same thing at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James#13_years ]: "working on it" then nothing.
The cynic in me says that if I keep patently waiting nothing will happen and after a while I will be posting a "14 years" complaint, but if I start making noise about hearing nothing I will be embarrassed to discover that someone has been furiously working on this and watch as they change the Wikimedia software in a way that solves everything -- 15 minutes after I hit send on my complaint.
I am left with these known facts:

  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to assign an employee or contractor the task of fixing this problem.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to budget a single dollar towards fixing this.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to provide an estimate of how long it is expected to take to fix this.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to write any requirements for fixing this. ("Requirements" is geek talk for "please define what 'done' is and how we will recognize that whoever is working on this is done".)
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to make a plan for an independent third party (which in this case means "someone with a visual impairment accessing Wikipedia with a screen reader") to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

So I ask the community: how long is a reasonable time for me to patently wait without any updates before going back to complaining about WMF inaction?

I mean i think you answered your own question. Some people are kind of interested and doing some initial cursorary research (at least that was my reading of Evan's comment, my apologies if i misinterpreted). I dont work for the wmf, so i dont know what is going on beside the scenes but afaict nobody has been assigned this as their primary task, nobody has put this task in their teams quarterly goals, etc. So the WMF is not working on this in any serious capacity. Not now and not for the last 13 years. Which to be clear is not in itself a criticism - there are many more bugs than resources, some bugs are going to get the short stick. I am not going to comment on whether its appropriate that this is one of the long ignored bugs.

So by all means, if you think this task is important, put political pressure on WMF to assign resources to it. But i think that political pressure should be somewhere other than the phab task to keep it clear for people interested in this problem (wmf affilated or otherwise) to discuss solutions, requirements and not the meta problem of whether or not wmf assigns its resources appropriately

Finding pictures and videos of people on the internet is pretty easy... i doubt that that will solve much unless paired with real name/post a picture of your passport type requirements, which would be pretty invasive.

Elitre removed a subscriber: Elitre.Sep 2 2019, 8:39 AM

Please see Development prioritization for some general info about "someone ("the WMF", you yourself, anyone else) should do something" expectations.
Please see Phabricator etiquette where to bring up meta-level discussions on priorities in general.
Thanks for your understanding.

TheDJ added a comment.EditedSep 2 2019, 10:08 AM

About potential backlash on disabling CAPTCHAs: Here stewards are arguing for better CAPTCHAs because they have too many fake accounts they need to deal with.

Guy_Macon added a comment.EditedSep 2 2019, 10:15 PM

Re: discussing solutions on this page, we have been doing that FOR THIRTEEN YEARS and blind people are still unable to access Wikipedia.

If I see no action by the WMF and no progress report from Evan by 03 February 2020 (that's 5 months from now) you can expect to see messages on various talk pages with the title "14 years". One would only hope that Evan would post a progress report here on phabricator some time in the next five months.

Re: "About potential backlash on disabling CAPTCHAs: Here stewards are arguing for better CAPTCHAs here because they have too many fake accounts they need to deal with", that's why I am not asking that CAPTCHAs be disabled. Instead I am asking that the WMF

  • Assign an employee or contractor the task of fixing this problem.
  • Budget some amount of money towards fixing this.
  • Give us at least the start of a schedule with a rough estimate of how long it is expected to take to fix this.
  • Write some sort of requirements -- however informal -- defining "done".

That being said, I consider our legal obligation to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and our ethical obligation to stop discriminating against the visually impaired to be more important than the convenience of the stewards. If the WMF decided to solve this, we won't have to choose.

TheDJ added a comment.Sep 3 2019, 6:14 AM

that's why I am not asking that CAPTCHAs be disabled. Instead I am asking that the WMF

Its a ticket, its not all about you. Also wrong venue. Prioritization of work by WMF doesnt happen via software ticket tracker.

@Guy_Macon: Please share your personal plans for February 2020 in other venues where they are not off-topic. Again: Please see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/Phabricator_etiquette if you would like to stay active in Wikimedia Phabricator. See my previous comment. Thanks for your understanding.

I formally object to Aklapper removing my comments as being "off topic". The fact that the WMF has spend 13 years not fixing this problem and that we are coming up on 14 years seems to be very much on topic. I don't see any link for accessing the edit history, so could someone please send me an email with my comments here and a record of when they were removed and by who?

Reedy added a subscriber: Reedy.EditedSep 8 2019, 5:34 PM

I formally object to Aklapper removing my comments as being "off topic". The fact that the WMF has spend 13 years not fixing this problem and that we are coming up on 14 years seems to be very much on topic. I don't see any link for accessing the edit history, so could someone please send me an email with my comments here and a record of when they were removed and by who?

As far as I can see, none of your comment have been removed. You are not being censored.

Have you tried scrolling up and clicking the link that hides previously read comments?

I just posted the following to [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees ]:

13 years

On 03 February 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our CAPTCHA system discriminates against blind people. See phabricator T6845. This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990 ) and leaves Wikipedia open to the possibility of discrimination lawsuit.
In particular, National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_the_Blind_v._Target_Corp. ) was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.
So why, after 13 years of inaction, do we not have a set of software requirements (including a testable definition of "done"), a schedule with milestones and updates, and budget and staffing information for solving this?
And no, I will not accept any proposed "solution" that lacks the name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that say how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.
Regarding hiring someone else to fix this, I would very much like the idea to be given careful consideration rather than being dismissed out of hand. The WMF is great at running an encyclopedia. Nobody else, anywhere on earth, even comes close. However, running an encyclopedia does not magically confer the ability to create high-quality software, and the WMF has a pretty dismal track record in this area (Examples: Visual Editor, Flow, 13 years of failing to making an obvious but boring improvement to accommodate blind people.) I realize that this will anger some people, but why should it? Olympic-level athletes don't get angry when you tell them that their athletic ability does not magically confer the ability to repair automobiles or do astronomy.
Comments from phabricator:

  • ''"This doesn't just effect addition of external links, it also prevents new users from registering, requiring them to use ACC to request an account."''
  • ''"There is no one currently assigned to this, so no one is taking it upon him to fix this at this moment. It's also not something that any team at the foundation is responsible for, so it's not likely to be prioritized from that end."''
  • ''The only thing stopping us from having an audio captcha is that nobody's put the work into implementing it yet." --Source: Chief MediaWiki developer as of 2008
  • ''"So the question is why has work not been put aside to fix an issue of recognised high importance that will, 13 years after first being raised, resolve an issue that results in us discriminating against people who are (in many jurisdictions) a legally protected minority?"''
    • Guy Macon, 08 July, 2019

I am having a bit of a quandary here.
I see "I'll try to get more educated on the topic, and hopefully give more information in the coming weeks" at [ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T6845 ] but nothing since.
I am seeing the same thing at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James#13_years ]: "working on it" then nothing.
The cynic in me says that if I keep patently waiting nothing will happen and after a while I will be posting a "14 years" complaint, but if I start making noise about hearing nothing I will be embarrassed to discover that someone has been furiously working on this and watch as they change the Wikimedia software in a way that solves everything -- 15 minutes after I hit send on my complaint.
I am left with these known facts:

  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to assign an employee or contractor the task of fixing this problem.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to budget a single dollar towards fixing this.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to provide an estimate of how long it is expected to take to fix this.
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to write any requirements for fixing this. ("Requirements" is geek talk for "please define what 'done' is and how we will recognize that whoever is working on this is done".)
  • For 13 years the WMF has failed to make a plan for an independent third party (which in this case means "someone with a visual impairment accessing Wikipedia with a screen reader") to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

So I ask the community: how long is a reasonable time for me to patently wait without any updates before going back to complaining about WMF inaction?

Re: discussing solutions on this page, we have been doing that FOR THIRTEEN YEARS and blind people are still unable to access Wikipedia.
If I see no action by the WMF and no progress report from Evan by 03 February 2020 (that's 5 months from now) you can expect to see messages on various talk pages with the title "14 years". One would only hope that Evan would post a progress report here on phabricator some time in the next five months.

Re: "About potential backlash on disabling CAPTCHAs: Here stewards are arguing for better CAPTCHAs here because they have too many fake accounts they need to deal with", that's why I am not asking that CAPTCHAs be disabled. Instead I am asking that the WMF

  • Assign an employee or contractor the task of fixing this problem.
  • Budget some amount of money towards fixing this.
  • Give us at least the start of a schedule with a rough estimate of how long it is expected to take to fix this.
  • Write some sort of requirements -- however informal -- defining "done".

That being said, I consider our legal obligation to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and our ethical obligation to stop discriminating against the visually impaired to be more important than the convenience of the stewards. If the WMF decided to solve this, we won't have to choose.

Krenair added a subscriber: Krenair.Sep 8 2019, 6:26 PM

I formally object to Aklapper removing my comments as being "off topic".

Please do not accuse me of things that I have not done.

The fact that the WMF has spend 13 years not fixing this problem and that we are coming up on 14 years seems to be very much on topic.

Please consider this a third and last request to read https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/Development_prioritization ("Why has nobody fixed this issue yet?") and https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/Phabricator_etiquette ("meta-level discussions on priorities in general"; "Criticize ideas, not people") if you would like to remain active in Wikimedia Phabricator. Thanks for staying on-topic and in scope.

I'm diving on this grenade until or unless someone else takes it over. I'm very interested in using our Captcha system for doing micro-curation tasks (both for visual and non-visual contributions), either for training machine-learning models, or for more heuristic one-off projects. I'll try to get more educated on the topic, and hopefully give more information in the coming weeks.

you know... it would be really slick if we could have our own "CAPTCHA" that could train ORES... Like maybe the captcha asks if edits are "good faith" or not (or something like that).