Talk:CAPTCHA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020[edit]

Please change 10 to ten (as shown in words) in the following text: It takes the average person approximately ten seconds to... (continued). If I remember correctly, it's on the first section (the very main part of the article). Also, change "text based" to "text-based" in the text In the case of image and text-based CAPTCHAs. 154.5.232.241 (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Not necessary. El_C 06:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for semi-protection. There was no reason given. However, I do believe we should change the '10' to 'ten'. It is at the end of the lead (the overview of the subject). According to Grammarly, all integers from zero to one hundred should be written out in normal documents. In technical, scientific, and complex writing, numbers less than ten should be written out in words.[1] I think Wikipedia counts as a normal document, so the number 'ten' should be written in words. A grammar expert's opinion would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.94.213 (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020[edit]

This peer-reviewed article should be added to the 'citation needed' request in the final sentence of the "Inventorship claims" section, because it addresses this issue clearly.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24701475.2020.1831197

Additionally, the article linked below also provides evidence for the 'citation needed' request in the second paragraph of 'Characteristics'. Jejune001 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I don't have access to more than the abstract of the article, so AGF-ing that is supports the cited content. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hi@ 182.189.94.88 (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2022[edit]

In the Accessibility section, the line "The use of CAPTCHA thus excludes a small number of individuals" appears deliberately intended to minimise the accessibility issue, raising NPOV issues when the previous paragraph has established an accessibility issue for 70,000+ deaf-blind people in the US and UK alone, and for 4% of over-60s, which taken worldwide is around 89 million people (7.9bn population * 28.2% over 60 * 4%) and expected to double by 2050. In addition to which the affected minority group is frequently covered by legal rights to accessible web services (cf ADA in the US, Equality Act 2010 in the UK, and the European Accessibility Act in the EU). I would therefore suggest the line is reworded to "The use of CAPTCHA thus excludes a significant minority group, who in many jurisdictions have a legal right to access," 86.8.177.103 (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: changed to small percentage of users, which I think is slightly better. SpinningCeres 17:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outsourcing to paid services[edit]

I would like to add citation to this section from 2captcha dot com Kentavr009 (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some serious changes[edit]

The entire article is written like an essay of some kind, and seems to completely misunderstand the point of CAPTCHA. The article is incredibly biased in a negative light, which is immediately obvious. Hopefully someone can change this as I am terrible at research and do not trust myself. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't I made massive changes to the article already? Have you not noticed that I added many new citations to fix the citation needed error, and also removed irrelevant sections of the article, @Club On a Sub 20? Sorry for the frustrated reply, since I have done so much, but there is still a lot to go.
Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the efforts, however, the article still reads like an essay, which is in violation of Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. I admit my previous complaint was poorly worded, and I apologize for that. It also shows a criticism of CAPTCHA at every point it can get, which is obviously a big no in accordance to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I'm sorry about this, I sound like a huge stickler for the rules. And don't worry about your response, I've seen a lot worse. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe try to find positive things about CAPTCHA? I will try to find some to balance it out, but the article feels more like it gives undue weight to criticisms of CAPTCHA than an essay about CAPTCHA, so I will add an undue weight error.
Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You@Thenewright22 2409:4050:E45:1067:41A1:D36E:B405:384B (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a brand new section, showing how CAPTCHAs are effective at blocking bot spamming, and showing how CAPTCHAs have evolved as well, with this edit:[1], but is it enough to remove the undue weight and essay error, since I balanced the article into positive and negative parts?
Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It is good enough for now. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So can I remove the errors now?
Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the errors now, due to the article being balanced and editing the lead section to make it balanced as well.
Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the article again, and realised that the article was balanced already, due to my edits and other people's edits. I found this positive sentence on the Accessibility section: One alternative method involves displaying to the user a simple mathematical equation and requiring the user to enter the solution as verification. Although these are much easier to defeat using software, they are suitable for scenarios where graphical imagery is not appropriate, and they are more accessible for blind users than the image-based CAPTCHAs. These are sometimes referred to as MAPTCHAs (M = "mathematical"). Also, @Club On a Sub 20, to narrow the focus of the article on CAPTCHA itself and nothing else, I suggest we split the article into 3: Circumvention of CAPTCHA, Accessibility of CAPTCHA, and CAPTCHA. These improvements will improve the article once and for all.

Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thenewright22 I greatly appreciate the efforts, but I would suggest you to revert the warning back on the back. Whether or not the article is neutral is debatable(one positive sentence isn't enough to balance an entire article, however, if most independent, reliable sources say so, then that's what will be reflected in the article.), however it still reads like an essay. I know this is a difficult fix, and I will try to help with the cleanup(I feel like a jerk, just telling you what to do and not helping)
Sincerely, Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, I will add the error back for now, until it is fixed, I just had an annoying editor try and reprimand me for a mistake that I made, but I won't say who he is for privacy. He said that his stock of good faith in me has been reduced (in other words, he doesn't trust me), so I told him to stop being an annoying jerk, and he stopped. Also, I am trying to be more cautious while editing. Thenewright22 (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just 'criticism of captcha' lol 2A00:23C6:E782:EA01:D4AB:41E2:46B2:AAEA (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just remove most of the negative parts, or just split the negative parts into separate articles? That way it will be more neutral.
Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thenewright22 Honestly, we might as well just try to redo the entire article lol. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea, maybe I'll add a rewrite error as well.
Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How come the CAPTCHA article is negative, while the reCAPTCHA article is positive?[edit]

I have noticed a direct contrast between the CAPTCHA and reCAPTCHA articles. The CAPTCHA article is overwhelmingly negative, as it mainly focuses on how inaccessible and bypassible it is, while the reCAPTCHA article mainly focuses on the positive impacts, with a small section on criticism. However, when I searched the talk page on reCAPTCHA, some people said more criticism must be added to the reCAPTCHA article, as well as saying that the article is just a giant promotion about reCAPTCHA! Meanwhile on this article, @Club On a Sub 20 and I said that this article was an essay that focused on the negative aspects of CAPTCHA! Do you want this article to become a giant promotion, just like the reCAPTCHA article, if all the mentions of the negative aspects of CAPTCHA (That is, most of the article) were removed? This is honestly, surprising. Any ideas or discussions can be put here.

Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all negative parts, just most of them, as well as adding a few positives, AKA Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you expect me to delete a huge section of the article? What if my edit is reverted, and I get a warning, and lose my good faith? Thenewright22 (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i bet the same happens with hcaptcha too. also, don't forget wikipedia in general has a big bias towards what the (left-wing) journalists and scientists say, and those aren't always necessarily impartial in their studies and botching results 2A00:23C6:E782:EA01:D4AB:41E2:46B2:AAEA (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You think Wikipedia is all one sided and left wing? That's the only science we have, all the other right wing voices are silenced or removed, I guess.
Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A scientific consensus by definition includes acceptance by what Americans call both liberal and conservative scientists. Different countries have different politics, which for any given issue don't necessarily align with American Democrat/Republican positions. Scientists are constantly trying to pole holes in each others' work. Wikipedia editors are cautioned against relying on studies for which no replication has been attempted and against including material where someone has cherry-picked only studies that support a political agenda (see Wikipedia:Qualify evidence#Single study syndrome). Anything short of a scientific consensus, Wikipedia needs to attribute to specific scientists rather than report as fact, and note if there is a dispute.
Wikipedia judges the acceptability of sources on their history of factual reliability, not whether the journalists, audience, or story mix reflects any particular politics. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for examples of how liberal, conservative, and other sources are scored.) Reliable sources are expected to get the facts right no matter which point of view they support. For major news events, it generally doesn't matter whether sources cited are considered liberal, conservative, or apolitical; the facts are the same.
That said, a minority of Wikipedia articles do have bias issues, though this usually has nothing to do with political ideology, and doesn't always skew left. In my experience, which bias shows up simply depends on which editors have worked on the article. There are, for example, many articles about the Bible which are clearly written from a Christian point of view. As Academic studies about Wikipedia#Bias points out, editors of English Wikipedia skew heavily male, English-speaking, and residing in developed countries, so our coverage is disproportionately incomplete when it comes to women, non-English-speaking cultures, and most of the countries of the world.
Studies show that article bias and sourcing problems tend to decrease over time as more editors from diverse points of view work on an article. I think the best response when you see bias in an article is to jump and edit the article to be more neutral. If you don't have time to do that, tagging helps other editors who are interested in NPOV to find and fix the problem, and in the meantime makes readers aware of it. We do have a ten-year backlog of tagged problems, though, so it would also be helpful to recruit more editors interested in neutralizing bias, especially those with under-represented points of view and backgrounds. -- Beland (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I was talking about political bias, not racial or gender bias, this has nothing to do with this article.
  2. What studies show that article bias and sourcing problems decrease over time? Where did they come from?
Thenewright22 (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based! Thenewright22 (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to believe that simply no one has written on the positives on CAPTCHA. I guess the article reflects that. As for political bias, race and gender can most certainly have an impact on political bias. For now, let's focus on moving away from the essay style. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll remove a huge section of the article, but don't blame me if it gets reverted. Thenewright22 (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VERIFY[edit]

VERIFY 201.175.242.161 (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Thenewright22 (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thenewright22 27.55.65.3 (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing Objects Difficult for Machine Learning?[edit]

I stumbled over following paragraph in Alternative CAPTCHAs:

"Some researchers have proposed alternatives including image recognition CAPTCHAs which require users to identify simple objects in the images presented. The argument in favor of these schemes is that tasks like object recognition are more complex to perform than text recognition and therefore should be more resilient to machine learning based attacks."

Isn't object recognition something machine learning algorithms thrive in? Carroll D. (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very out of date[edit]

With AI advances over the past few years, traditional text-identification CAPTCHAs are all but obsolete. Much more dominant these days are image identification and interactive game-like challenges, often with (I believe) adversarial perturbations to increase the difficulty for AI solvers. It also doesn't account for the way modern CAPTCHAs typically appear selectively based on risk assessment from a number of factors like IP range, user agent, and other kept secret. The article needs a major overhaul to account for recent developments. StereoFolic (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet what form of captcha does wiki itself use for editorial control? A text-identification based one. (And one with no accessible alternatives). Image identification based captchas are just as subject to inaccessibility and legal challenge because of it. That's not to say the article shouldn't be expanded to cover them, it should, but so should the section on accessibility problems caused by captchas. 86.14.138.8 (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting removing all mention of historical CAPTCHAs, but adding descriptions of modern CAPTHAs and updating statements about which are most prevalent these days. Wikimedia has an issue tracking exactly the problem that its CAPTCHA is outdated and inaccessible. StereoFolic (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023[edit]

27.55.78.139 (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023[edit]

196.249.102.180 (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2024[edit]

Change "Insecure to Unsecure" implementation Techimanz (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: "Insecure" is perfectly correct here – "unsecure" isn't even a word in most dictionaries. Tollens (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Insecure is a human emotion. Unsecured is what I meant Techimanz (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Insecure" can apply in a security context as well. StereoFolic (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2024[edit]

Change "Insecure" to "Unsecured" Techimanz (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per previous request discussion StereoFolic (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]