imported>Dawidi (+1 for captchas) |
imported>Aperfectring (There are too many words for 2p, so we'll go with 10p) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
The ReCAPTCHA seems like a pretty useful project even beyond serving as a spam protection - I'd favor that solution. I wouldn't mind disabling anonymous editing, but since we have registered spammers too, that's probably unneccessary. --[[User:Dawidi|dawidi]] 09:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | The ReCAPTCHA seems like a pretty useful project even beyond serving as a spam protection - I'd favor that solution. I wouldn't mind disabling anonymous editing, but since we have registered spammers too, that's probably unneccessary. --[[User:Dawidi|dawidi]] 09:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | 1. I know you say you don't care, but that may just be because you have gotten used to it. My opinion is that you would really appreciate not having to do it anymore. Though you would have to find a new outlet for all your singing.<br> | ||
| + | 2. I haven't ever logged onto the wiki from a cyber cafe, and doubt I ever will, so disabling anonymous editing wouldn't be any skin off of my teeth. However, I do know that other people do so from time to time, so this isn't my favorite option.<br> | ||
| + | 3. I'm in favor of the ReCAPTCHA setup. Captchas in general tend to do a good job at discouraging spam, and the one used by that extension seems pretty good.<br> | ||
| + | 4. The problem with using a script to prevent certain types of user names is that it must necessarily be strict and focused, otherwise user names will always have to be confirmed by someone with authority. The problem with a strict and focused approach is that spammers, though annoying, are clever. When they see that their current approach is no longer working, they will just tweak it a bit, and we will have to bother the wiki server admin again to update our script.<br> | ||
| + | 5. I know you said you were joking, but this is the only surefire way to get rid of spam on the wiki. =P<br> | ||
| + | So, given my opinions, my ranking is this: '''3>2>1>4>5'''<br> | ||
| + | And I suggest we use the Beatpath Winner (can be calculated [http://www.ericgorr.net/condorcet/ here]) based on people's rankings. Relet suggested it for a vote I proposed earlier, and it is quite appropriate for this vote as well, since we have multiple options to choose from. --[[User:Aperfectring|aperfectring]] 12:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:27, 7 July 2009
What helped extremely well against any kind of wiki spam in one mediawiki I administer is a silent word blacklist. I.e. you put common spam words (which can be brand names, certain otherwise uncommon html tag parameters, or certain link parts on a blacklist. Whenever one of these words is used, the page is not saved when pressing the save button, but the wiki behaves as if. I run my blacklist on less than ten keywords and haven't seen either spam or user complaints in years. That requires tinkering with the wiki php code though. It wouldn't work if it were a common extension.
I'm fine with any text-based (i.e. accessible) captchas otherwise. I don't like banning anonymous. -- relet 09:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Will it be smart enough to recognize an expedition report where the hashpoint is at Pfizer headquarters? ;) --ilpadre 09:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The ReCAPTCHA seems like a pretty useful project even beyond serving as a spam protection - I'd favor that solution. I wouldn't mind disabling anonymous editing, but since we have registered spammers too, that's probably unneccessary. --dawidi 09:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
1. I know you say you don't care, but that may just be because you have gotten used to it. My opinion is that you would really appreciate not having to do it anymore. Though you would have to find a new outlet for all your singing.
2. I haven't ever logged onto the wiki from a cyber cafe, and doubt I ever will, so disabling anonymous editing wouldn't be any skin off of my teeth. However, I do know that other people do so from time to time, so this isn't my favorite option.
3. I'm in favor of the ReCAPTCHA setup. Captchas in general tend to do a good job at discouraging spam, and the one used by that extension seems pretty good.
4. The problem with using a script to prevent certain types of user names is that it must necessarily be strict and focused, otherwise user names will always have to be confirmed by someone with authority. The problem with a strict and focused approach is that spammers, though annoying, are clever. When they see that their current approach is no longer working, they will just tweak it a bit, and we will have to bother the wiki server admin again to update our script.
5. I know you said you were joking, but this is the only surefire way to get rid of spam on the wiki. =P
So, given my opinions, my ranking is this: 3>2>1>4>5
And I suggest we use the Beatpath Winner (can be calculated here) based on people's rankings. Relet suggested it for a vote I proposed earlier, and it is quite appropriate for this vote as well, since we have multiple options to choose from. --aperfectring 12:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
