Mark Williamson wrote:
>Now, that aside, there's another major problem: accent. Who's to say I
>could understand what you were saying, if you said "star"?
>There is no unambiguous way to represent words through audio.
That's a theoretical possible problem rather than actual data (which
is why that' s what I asked for) or even anecdote.
I haven't found data yet, but here's a page of theory with anecdote:
http://www.standards-schmandards.com/index.php?2005/01/01/11-captcha
Note they get around your problem by using numbers. This apparently
worked on three casual test subjects. Though that, of course, is
anecdote, not data.
The W3 paper just provides possible approaches with no words on
effectiveness: http://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/
Evidently the audio option was frequently unusable a couple of years
ago: http://news.com.com/2100-1032-1022814.html - I would *presume*
there's been improvement since then.
Does anyone have or know of *actual data* (rather than hypothesis or
anecdote) on whether non-visual captchas are any good as yet?
- d.
Jan-Paul Köster wrote:
>I think the core question in this discussion is not "Can people change
>other peoples comments so that they contradict the original poster's
>point of view?" but the question is "Do people actually change other
>peoples comments so that they misstate the original poster's point of
>view, and are they successful or are those changes quickly reverted
>wiki-style?"
>The answer to the first question is clearly "yes" which sufficiently
>explains why many people are afraid of it happening (one side of the
>posters here). The answer to the second question cannot be given very
>easily but from my experience the wiki system generally works also in
>discussions. So can the wiki system be abused? Yes! Is it actually being
>abused? I don't see it.
It's rare enough on en: that people are outraged if refactoring is
abused. Changing others' comments tends to just not happen - not
because of technical constraints, but because it's considered rude to
change others' signed comments. So yeah, assuming good faith works
here.
I'm really not convinced this whole forum idea isn't a solution in
search of a problem. Every web forum I've ever seen is a bad
recreation of Usenet. And for Usenet, we already have the mailing
lists through gmane.
- d.
Does anyone know how you can change the time settings (NL wiki)? I've
tried to go to Preferences and then to Daten and time settings, I
entered "add from browser"... it doesn't work, I entered it by hand +2
hours... doesn't work... I entered +8 hours, still doesn't change...
c'est très irritant! Please hellup mii!!
Serv
Magnus Manske wrote:
>David Gerard wrote:
>> Magnus Manske wrote:
>>> P.S.: I think I actually found a *real* bug; it seems anyone can change
>>> the list of topics. I'll have to restrict that to sysops.
>> I'd expect on Wikipedia that'd be a steward-level thing. Remember that
>> after the testing phase, it's unlikely to change very often if at all,
>> and then only with the consent of the wiki's community.
>As the selection of topics/ranges is a per-wikipedia thing, wouldn't
>that be more suitable for a buerocrat?
Someone rare and high-up, anyway ;-) Certainly not every admin.
- d.
Hello,
I justed wanted to ask what stands against enabling $wgEnotifUserTalk in
all wikis ?
As you know, the number of changes on user talk pages per days is quite
low, in the range of about 2.000 per day.
As Enotifs are only sent for the first "foreign" change (not for
changes of the user/owner of that page), the number of sent e-mails is
even lower.
I'd like to have this enabled on the wikis, so that users can opt-in to
have a notification, when someone changes their talk page.
Tom
Magnus Manske wrote:
>P.S.: I think I actually found a *real* bug; it seems anyone can change
>the list of topics. I'll have to restrict that to sysops.
I'd expect on Wikipedia that'd be a steward-level thing. Remember that
after the testing phase, it's unlikely to change very often if at all,
and then only with the consent of the wiki's community.
- d.
On 11/1/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:
> This is a reminder/formal notice that the voting period for the creation
> of Wikiversity is now over, and that the proposal to create Wikiversity
> as a new Wikimedia sister project is now being submitted to the
> Wikimedia Foundation board for a formal review..[snip]
I'd just like to thank you Robert for all the work you've put into
this proposal, timetable, vote etc. I've been meaning to write up a
proposal to the community on this, as Wikiversity is something that
really energises me at the moment (mentally at least). (My lack of)
time at the moment forbids me from going into everything I'd like to
say about Wikiversity, but I'd liek to make some brief points.
It is clear that many people are afraid that the idea is too
half-baked or not ready enough to be started. This is currently true -
Wikiversity exists as many different ideas in many people's heads,
with plenty of enthusiasm but not much to actually to show for it. But
my counter argument to this is: *every* wiki project has developed
from a similar position. Every wiki is an idea which is generated and
created through the combined energy of its participants - you only
have to look at the various listings of people at the vote or on the
proposed projects page or on the meta Wikiversity talk page amongst
others, to see that there is so much energy there waiting to be
tapped, and rearing to go. That, surely, is the main thing. I think
the crucial point is that Wikiversity, if created now, will not (in
the main) be ready to actually go live as a learning centre *just
yet*. It needs to have a creation period, it needs to be widely known
about to generate a learner base - and *then* it can flourish. Just
don't expect results yet (though some courses could be created quite
quickly - and who's to say that we need to constuct whole courses in
the first place? What about single lesson plans? What about
collections of flash cards? etc.)
Another major concern is resources - both human and electronic (ie.
financial). I don't know about the latter part (and I'd really like
someone to tell us how much it would cost in server/work hours terms
to set up a new project in comparison to what it would cost to set up
a new language project on any other WMF project - hence crossposting
to wikitech). But on the human resources side - i think, on the
contrary, this will be an excellent opportunity for the projects to
cross-pollinate (Wikipedia and Wikibooks especially) and draw in a
huge sector of people that may have erstwhile have remained on the
periphery of especially Wikipedia. I have a hunch that not only could
we get a whole lot more poeple involved in setting up this project,
but we could also get some major funding. UNESCO's ecucation for all
campaign comes to mind - and I'd appreciate any other suggestions.
That's all time permits me to say for now, but suffice to say that i
have been reading around Wikiversity for a few months now and, for
one, am highly motivated to get this off the ground. I know of quiet a
few more and I know that it could really take off. So if we could have
some very clear technical issues that need to be dealt with, I think
that's where we should be focussing our attention, rather than the
fact that it isn't ready/finished yet - because it just needs a bit of
time, space, and a steady stream of energy that i know exists.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Cormac / Cormaggio
Does anyone know of any efforts to integrate bibtex citation data into
MediWiki? Something like this plugin for PMWiki?
<http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/BibtexRef>
Thanks!
kerim
I still see what looks like breathtaking quantities of obvious spam
coming to the wikien-l queue. Is the spam filtering and greylisting
still on? Do we have numbers on what's not even making it to the
queue?
- d.
Hello,
I want to setup up a number of websites which share a single
wiki underneath. The only difference between the websites
will be:
* The URI used to access the website
* The main page
* The navigation links
Is it possible, and how much work is involved in configuring
such a wiki.
Thanks
-John