From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/49760 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: GroupLens (gnus-gl.el) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 23:40:14 -0500 Organization: =?koi8-r?q?=F4=C5=CF=C4=CF=D2=20=FA=CC=C1=D4=C1=CE=CF=D7?= @ Cienfuegos Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <4nlm161ks2.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1044160202 1798 80.91.224.249 (2 Feb 2003 04:30:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 04:30:02 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18fBlX-0000SP-00 for ; Sun, 02 Feb 2003 05:30:00 +0100 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 18fBmo-0001p5-00; Sat, 01 Feb 2003 22:31:18 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sat, 01 Feb 2003 22:32:14 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (sclp3.sclp.com [66.230.238.2]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA09521 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 22:32:02 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 79610 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2003 04:31:00 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 79605 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2003 04:31:00 -0000 Original-Received: from ns1.beld.net (208.229.215.81) by 66.230.238.6 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2003 04:31:00 -0000 Original-Received: from heechee.beld.net (dhcp-0-30-bd-1-93-b1.cpe.beld.net [24.233.67.61]) by ns1.beld.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E9583BA0D for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 23:30:59 -0500 (EST) Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6;d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (Simon Josefsson's message of "Sun, 02 Feb 2003 03:17:50 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090015 (Oort Gnus v0.15) Emacs/21.2 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49760 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:49760 On Sun, 02 Feb 2003, jas@extundo.com wrote: > Ted Zlatanov writes: >> So let's build an authorization system, using the standard "put >> this number in a noisy image and make the user type it back" >> technique. > > It is simple to break most, if not all, currently used automated > turing tests... An image of a word/number with random noise and a random font is pretty hard to recognize automatically. But anyhow, this is just to apply to be a contributor - you have to be voted in next, see below :) >> You'll have to register through it, and the system could also >> require a PGP message signature every time you submit a score > > This could work, but only if users trust the signatures out of band, > which for many computer savvy people is already possible. Getting > your key signed by computer savvy people wherever you are is not > that difficult (think debian). Abusers could be locked out by > placing their keys on a blacklist, threshold signed by people that > think they should be locked out. Then other users can chose which > blacklist to use and which threhshold to require (i.e., how many > signatures of implicitly trusted people required to black list > someone). > > All this assumes there are more good, and actively interested, users > than bad users, which I believe is as good as you can get (byzantine > models etc). Those who used to frequent BBS systems will remember there used to be new user voting systems. New users would have to get a number of votes from current users to be accepted. Furthermore, the sysop could delete the account if he felt like it. New users had to read the greeting messages carefully, and spend more than a few minutes answering a detailed questionnaire. They had to show some intelligence, some wit, and some awareness of the purpose of the board. Thus, their reading and writing skills were a factor (unless they simply knew a lot of current members). The equivalent for Gnus moderation would be a user moderation group. Let's say group Kabal is started by me. I would tell Gnus users: point your Gnus to http://kabal.org/gnus-lens. There, they would find the current moderator list, and they would set up GnusLens (how about that name instead of GroupLens?) to consult that web site for article scores through some HTTP low-bandwidth mechanism. I would promote a few other people to be Kabal meta-moderators, and they would also have the authority to give Kabal contributors scores, to blacklist contributors, etc. Furthermore, while it may take 20 regular group contributors to approve or reject a new contributor, meta-moderators could do it on their own. Picking the Kabal user group would mean you accept me and my friends as good judges of character, not as good article scorers necessarily. >> It will be difficult to set up, and that will be a Good Thing IMO. > > If we assume there are more good people than bad people in the > world, making it easy enough for everyone to use would improve the > system. (And if we make the opposite assumption, then the good > users could simply negate the votes on reading, if they don't tell > the bad users. :-)) I don't know about good/bad user ratios. I think making it hard to sign up (in a read-the-FAQ way, not in a IQ-test way) simply means that meta-moderators and regular contributors will have less people to vote for. This is getting a bit off-track for Gnus, but it's all probably necessary if we want to create a GnusLens system (GnusLoupe? I don't know what a good name would be, but I'm pretty sure GroupLens is trademarked according to their web site). Writing the code to run such a web site is definitely a major endeavor, and the site would generate a lot of CPU load and network traffic. Ted