Talk:CAPTCHA

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020

This peer-reviewed article should be added to the 'citation needed' request in the final sentence of the "Inventorship claims" section, , 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done I don't have access to more than the abstract of the article, so AGF-ing that is supports the cited content. * Pppery talk:182.189.94.88|talk) 15:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

== Semi-protected 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 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)

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

Outsourcing to paid services

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

 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)

VERIFY

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

Spam Thenewright22 (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Thenewright22 27.55.65.3 (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Recognizing Objects Difficult for Machine Learning?

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)

Very out of date

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

27.55.78.139 (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

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

•  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. StereoFolic (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Like 117.102.63.156 (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2024

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

 Not done: "Insecure" is perfectly correct here – "unsecure" isn't even a word in most dictionaries. Tollens (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Insecure is a human emotion. Unsecured is what I meant Techimanz (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"Insecure" can apply in a security context as well. StereoFolic (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2024

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

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

Kontripvagas think 103.175.229.88 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

💯 166.181.88.229 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)