Forum:CT:Image Code Verification

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Image Code Verification


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was inconclusive.–SentryTalk 11:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've recently been looking into ways of cutting down on vandalism (as well as the site redesign, which is currently being developed FYI) and I came across the Homestar Runner Wiki who in fact use an image code verification system for all of their edits (go ahead and try to edit an article, though don't vandalize, and you'll see what I mean) and I thought that this might be a good thing to implement...not for edits, but for page moves. It would stop us suddenly having 150 pages moved to PAGENAME is Communism/on Wheels/etc. within a few seconds. While it obviously wouldn't stop it completely, it would cut down on it a lot as it causes the vandal to have to actually look at the image code and then type it in when he wants to move, as well as completely stopping bots from being able to move pages which I actually believe is what happens a lot of the time. Now I admit that it will take a few seconds more to move pages with this system, but how often do we need to move pages en mass quickly, bar when we're moving them back from vandalism? Anyway, I spoke to the creator of the image code extension, and s/he's agreed to share it with us, and is giving me instructions on how to install it if we chose to do so. So are people for or against it? (RMF doesn't get to vote :P j/k)

Vote

Use it for page moves only

  1. It's my idea, read above to find out why I want to implement it. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. I can't see any legitimate reason for an en-masse page-move... but if one did arise, would it be possible to take the code out temporarily? --McEwok 16:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kuralyov 16:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Riffsyphon1024 05:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Aside from vandals, not a lot of page moves seem to go on around here. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 07:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Extreme support. I couldn't possibly be more in favor of this. The only possible way I could be more supportive of this is if there were two of me. -- Darth Culator 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Use it for all edits

Don't implement it

  1. Vehement oppose, see comments. RMF 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Over my dead body!!! - Sikon [Talk] 15:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. I could maybe live with this for page moves only, but I think it'd be more trouble than it's worth. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Rudy 06:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mirlen 20:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Well most people use this to comment why they want it...I just want to cut down on the "on Wheels"/"is Communism" etc. vandals. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an awful idea, for a variety of reasons. The whole point of a wiki is openness, ease of editing – it is this very openness that has has gotten us to this point. Restricting page moves may seem like a good way to cut down on move vandalism, but there is also collateral damage: legitimate users have to deal with the hassle of inputing silly codes. This may not be a big deal if you rarely move pages, but there are some instances (such as archiving old Senate Hall/CT topics) where a number of rapid moves have to be done, and this plan would make that much less efficient. I would rather keep it easy for legitimate users to edit/move, not hard for vandals to vandalize. The latter is all well and good, but when the two come in conflict I don't think we should allow vandals to influence our policy. Besides, move vandalism isn't that bad here (and if you think it is, check out the fanon wiki sometime): although it happens sometimes, we have plenty of admins and numerous registered users who can clean it up quickly. RMF 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Anything to lower vandalism. And if some users can't take the addiitonal two seconds to put in the code, it seems to me like they'd be more the type who put in brief one-sentence articles rather than full-on, dedicated users. Kuralyov 16:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We'll see where this goes. Hopefully it doesn't inhibit our ability to move pages with grace and ease. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I should note that there are people using text browsers, as well as people having images off for traffic-saving reasons. Extreme Lesbian Against and I'll lie on rails if something like this actually gets implemented. - Sikon [Talk] 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Extreme Lesbian Against? .... anyway, all I can say is that it was really annoying trying to use it on the Homestar Runner wiki, because the answer to the image code verification went out of sync with the actual image. At least, I think that's what happened. I couldn't even register a username. It was bad. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Another consideration is that visually impaired users won't be able to pass the CAPTCHA at all since they won't be able to recognize the characters in the image. Also, the some of the CAPTCHA images at Homestar are pretty difficult to read compared to other implementations I've seen. Somehow I think the vandals are going to enjoy moving the pages even more if we make it a bigger pain in the ass to move them back. It's not like they have anything better to do with their time anyway. Although I have no Extreme Lesbian views on this matter, I don't see a net gain here.--Rudy 06:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Let's be honest here: how many blind people are going to be using Wookieepedia on a regular basis anyways? Kuralyov 20:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
        • *laughs* Well, Kuralyov has a point there. I maintain the views of RMF and Silly Dan on this matter, however. —Mirlen 22:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Visually impaired doesn't necessarily mean blindness – for example, color-blind users would have problems with CAPTCHA images (at least in this implementation). Also, blind people often surf the web via the aid of assitive devices such as screen-readers, so the possibility of blind readers of Wookieepedia may be more likely than you think :-) (although, to be fair, I'm not sure why they would need to move pages). Still, Rudy's point about reverting move vandalism is a good one – if a vandal is persistent enough to move pages even with CAPTCHA, we are also making it harder to revert those changes. RMF 00:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.