stop allowing wikipedia to be used as an image host

han614698

Not to mention, so one with a scratch account and Wikipedia could easily change to an inappropriate picture…

ILikeProggraming123

han614698 wrote:
Not to mention, so one with a scratch account and Wikipedia could easily change to an inappropriate picture…

You don't need a Wikipedia account to change stuff.

ShyGamer16

You can also upload innapropriate images to cube upload, imageshack and other image services. Is that to say that we should blacklist every image service? In my opinion this seems overkill since you can just report innapropriate images anyway.

ShyGamer16

dhuls

ShyGamer16 wrote:
You can also upload innapropriate images to cube upload, imageshack and other image services. Is that to say that we should blacklist every image service? In my opinion this seems overkill since you can just report innapropriate images anyway.

ShyGamer16

Cubeupload, Imageshack, the Scratch Wikis, and most of the other image hosts have policies against inappropriate images (see TOS for Cubeupload and Imageshack, and the Scratch Wikis follow the Scratch Community Guidelines) but Wikipedia doesn't.

ShyGamer16

dhuls wrote:
ShyGamer16 wrote:
You can also upload innapropriate images to cube upload, imageshack and other image services. Is that to say that we should blacklist every image service? In my opinion this seems overkill since you can just report innapropriate images anyway.

ShyGamer16
Cubeupload, Imageshack, the Scratch Wikis, and most of the other image hosts have policies against inappropriate images (see TOS for Cubeupload and Imageshack, and the Scratch Wikis follow the Scratch Community Guidelines) but Wikipedia doesn't.

That's true but you can still always use the report button.

ShyGamer16

-InsanityGames-

jackson49 wrote:
Support. I'm surprised it's currently allowed considering that anyone can put stuff on there

So you're saying assets.scratch.mit.edu, cdn.scratch.mit.edu and cdn2.scratch.mit.edu should be removed from the whitelist?

weloveipad2

jackson49 wrote:
Bump

-InsanityGames- wrote:
jackson49 wrote:
Support. I'm surprised it's currently allowed considering that anyone can put stuff on there
So you're saying assets.scratch.mit.edu, cdn.scratch.mit.edu and cdn2.scratch.mit.edu should be removed from the whitelist?

Tho the person would have to share it. The scratch website is moderated and they can remove them.

samq64

weloveipad2 wrote:
Tho the person would have to share it.

Nope. The project below is unshared.

Last edited by samq64 (Aug. 28, 2021 22:50:55)

WindowsWhiz1234

Support, people could post inappropriate images on Scratch using Wikipedia.

PGBFLITE6373

Support, removes inapporirate images from scratch

dhuls

WindowsWhiz1234 wrote:
Support, people could post inappropriate images on Scratch using Wikipedia.

One could post inappropriate images using any other image host. Even Scratch itself (through CDN2 or assets).

PGBFLITE6373 wrote:
Support, removes inapporirate images from scratch

There were never inappropriate images anyways.

Dotumantaraye

Semi-support but kind of not really, I'm bopping all over the place today. I believe some inappropriate images could be filtered by image categories; although 1. I literally have no idea how that works, and 2. that seems too ambitious. Just throwing that on the table in case anyone wants to build on that even though it doesn't seem practical.

But mostly, I still want to use wikipedia as an image host.

Bacteria999

No Support.

Wikipedia is a huge source of knowledge, and very few images are inappropriate, if they are, moderating them is not difficult.

It's like forbidding a child to go to a library, because there is more mature content. Leaving out all the good stuff.

lapisi

Bacteria999 wrote:
No Support.

Wikipedia is a huge source of knowledge, and very few images are inappropriate, if they are, moderating them is not difficult.

It's like forbidding a child to go to a library, because there is more mature content. Leaving out all the good stuff.

Dotumantaraye wrote:
Semi-support but kind of not really, I'm bopping all over the place today. I believe some inappropriate images could be filtered by image categories; although 1. I literally have no idea how that works, and 2. that seems too ambitious. Just throwing that on the table in case anyone wants to build on that even though it doesn't seem practical.

But mostly, I still want to use wikipedia as an image host.

dhuls wrote:
WindowsWhiz1234 wrote:
Support, people could post inappropriate images on Scratch using Wikipedia.
One could post inappropriate images using any other image host. Even Scratch itself (through CDN2 or assets).
PGBFLITE6373 wrote:
Support, removes inapporirate images from scratch
There were never inappropriate images anyways.

say exampleuser123 posts what is at the time a completely innocent image, the image gets vandalized into an inappropriate image and exampleuserabc reports it, now that it's reported there are 2 possible outcomes depending on when the ST sees the image, 1: the image is still inappropriate and exampleuser123 gets an alert for posting an inappropriate image even though it wasn't inappropriate at the time of posting, or 2: the image gets edited back and exampleuserabc gets an alert for false reporting, either way someone is getting an alert despite being innocent

dhuls

lapisi wrote:
say exampleuser123 posts what is at the time a completely innocent image, the image gets vandalized into an inappropriate image and exampleuserabc reports it, now that it's reported there are 2 possible outcomes depending on when the ST sees the image, 1: the image is still inappropriate and exampleuser123 gets an alert for posting an inappropriate image even though it wasn't inappropriate at the time of posting, or 2: the image gets edited back and exampleuserabc gets an alert for false reporting, either way someone is getting an alert despite being innocent

1. The ST does not users for false reporting unless they do it frequently
2. Image vandalizing is rare, as most vandalism done on WP is towards articles
3. Most images are actually on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia itself.
4. No one is gonna vandalize some barely used image, and the more frequently used images are almost always protected.

jackson49

Bacteria999 wrote:
It's like forbidding a child to go to a library, because there is more mature content. Leaving out all the good stuff.

Unlike in a library, you can't always chose what to look at.

Last edited by jackson49 (Aug. 30, 2021 13:39:58)

PrincessPandaLover

I'm going to support the removal of Wikipedia as an image host because of what others have said about the potential of vandalism, but what about links?

ShyGamer16

jackson49 wrote:
Bacteria999 wrote:
It's like forbidding a child to go to a library, because there is more mature content. Leaving out all the good stuff.
Unlike in a library, you can't always chose what to look at.

Yeah, you can? I'm confused…

ShyGamer16

jackson49

ShyGamer16 wrote:
jackson49 wrote:
Bacteria999 wrote:
It's like forbidding a child to go to a library, because there is more mature content. Leaving out all the good stuff.
Unlike in a library, you can't always chose what to look at.
Yeah, you can? I'm confused…

ShyGamer16

You don't always know you're going to see something bad until it's too late, as proven by the original post

Last edited by jackson49 (Aug. 31, 2021 13:40:49)

Dotumantaraye

on a semi-unrelated note…
this is a previous revision of ‘The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg’. I can basically pull a specific revision out (which can't be modified), although this isn't practical as most people would probably use a direct link linking to the current version (which can be modified). just throwing that out there.

Discuss Scratch