On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, MenTaLguY wrote:
My point is that fancy verification mechanisms are an arms race we
really win, and the fancier or more difficult, the more legitimate users
we would hurt.
I think it's more important that our verifier be unique than that it be
particularly difficult. If spammers can't exploit economies of scale by
utilizing off-the-shelf software, it becomes much less economical for them
to spam us in particular.
Agreed. Also, I am only aiming to get 80-90% out of the software, and
count on the Inkscape community for the remaining 10-20%. As long as we
have the tools at our disposal to get rid of the most repetitive,
high-hassle stuff, the rest can be taken care of by just ensuring we
have good participation from Wiki users.
A few weeks ago I met with some Wikipedia editors/admins and asked how
they handled spam in Wikipedia. They said they have some code to
measure time between edits, but beyond that they fish the spam out
manually, the same way we've been doing. They just have a lot more
eyeballs on it.
Anyway, I figure as long as we help keep the hassle of using wiki under
control, we can depend on our community to help maintain it. :-)