dhuls wrote:

sharkode wrote:

Wikipedia should be censored and people on Scratch should not be allowed to post links to Wikipedia

We should also censor Google and YouTube because it's just as easy, if not easier, to find inappropriate stuff on those sites.

You'd have to be looking for inappropriate stuff to find it.

no because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time, Youtube and Google can't

dhuls wrote:

ILikeProggraming123 wrote:

dhuls wrote:

ILikeProggraming123 wrote:

dhuls wrote:

ILikeProggraming123 wrote:

dhuls wrote:

I'm surprised nobody's brought this up yet, but to upload images to Wikipedia, along with uploading new versions of already existing images, requires your account to be autoconfirmed or confirmed. That requires a 10 day old account and 4 edits. Almost nobody is that dedicated.

I’m pretty sure you can request images to be uploaded, undermining the point.

The image still has to be uploaded manually by an autoconfirmed user, undermining that point.

But someone can have connections, or just plain have a supporter to upload it, undermining that point.

But someone can easily revert it.

Unless they used a permanent link.

perma links only work for old revisions, not the latest revision.

once again, say someone sees the image on scratch before it gets reverted, and then reports it for being inappropriate, and then it gets reverted before the ST sees it, and then the one who reported it gets an alert for false reporting despite the image being inappropriate at the time of reporting

lapisi wrote:

dhuls wrote:

sharkode wrote:

Wikipedia should be censored and people on Scratch should not be allowed to post links to Wikipedia

We should also censor Google and YouTube because it's just as easy, if not easier, to find inappropriate stuff on those sites.

You'd have to be looking for inappropriate stuff to find it.

no because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time, Youtube and Google can't

dhuls wrote:

ILikeProggraming123 wrote:

dhuls wrote:

ILikeProggraming123 wrote:

dhuls wrote:

ILikeProggraming123 wrote:

dhuls wrote:

I'm surprised nobody's brought this up yet, but to upload images to Wikipedia, along with uploading new versions of already existing images, requires your account to be autoconfirmed or confirmed. That requires a 10 day old account and 4 edits. Almost nobody is that dedicated.

I’m pretty sure you can request images to be uploaded, undermining the point.

The image still has to be uploaded manually by an autoconfirmed user, undermining that point.

But someone can have connections, or just plain have a supporter to upload it, undermining that point.

But someone can easily revert it.

Unless they used a permanent link.

perma links only work for old revisions, not the latest revision.

once again, say someone sees the image on scratch before it gets reverted, and then reports it for being inappropriate, and then it gets reverted before the ST sees it, and then the one who reported it gets an alert for false reporting despite the image being inappropriate at the time of reporting

Again, you only get alerted for false reporting if you do it a lot.

Let's not ignore the fact that a good chunk of the world's freely licensed images are on Wikimedia Commons.

support
i had no idea wikipedia was an image host to begin with (and it makes no sense in my mind for it to be one anyway), but reading the posts people made, it is risky for people to use wikipedia as an image source as anybody at any time can change the page and cause a potential threat to scratch's users

flafs- wrote:

support
i had no idea wikipedia was an image host to begin with (and it makes no sense in my mind for it to be one anyway), but reading the posts people made, it is risky for people to use wikipedia as an image source as anybody at any time can change the page and cause a potential threat to scratch's users

Again, not everyone can change images.

dhuls wrote:

ILikeProggraming123 wrote:

dhuls wrote:

ILikeProggraming123 wrote:

dhuls wrote:

ILikeProggraming123 wrote:

dhuls wrote:

I'm surprised nobody's brought this up yet, but to upload images to Wikipedia, along with uploading new versions of already existing images, requires your account to be autoconfirmed or confirmed. That requires a 10 day old account and 4 edits. Almost nobody is that dedicated.

I’m pretty sure you can request images to be uploaded, undermining the point.

The image still has to be uploaded manually by an autoconfirmed user, undermining that point.

But someone can have connections, or just plain have a supporter to upload it, undermining that point.

But someone can easily revert it.

Unless they used a permanent link.

perma links only work for old revisions, not the latest revision.

Wrong, you can have a permalink for a latest revision. You just go to the second to last revision and click next revision.

ILikeProggraming123 wrote:

-snip-
Wrong, you can have a permalink for a latest revision. You just go to the second to last revision and click next revision.

Again, we're talking about images, not articles.

Bump

Bump

i will fully support

-Morni- wrote:

I will fully support

Please say why.

But add Wikimedia Commons, as those don't change.

Yeah, Scratch is a childrens site. Not an 18+ site.

Look, the inappropriate images are on Wikipedia for educational purposes, but I don't know if Scratch will acknowledge that. Some support.

DevonianMapping wrote:

(#136)
Look, the inappropriate images are on Wikipedia for educational purposes, but I don't know if Scratch will acknowledge that. Some support.

I'm not just talking about the ones that are supposed to be there, I suggested this because on April Fool's Day last year on Algodoo there was a message “You are running out of polygons! Please consider buying more at www.algodoo.com/buy_more_stuff.html” the URL is just a “not found” page but clicking it takes you to the Wikipedia page for April Fool's Day, and the first image was vandalized into a very inappropriate image, and it stayed that way the entire day and got changed back the next day. Now imagine someone posted that image before it was vandalized, and then it got vandalized and someone saw the post and reported it, if the report is seen by the ST before the image got changed back then the person who posted it would get an alert for posting an inappropriate image despite the image not being inappropriate when it was posted, if the report is seen by the ST after the image is changed back then the person who reported it would get an alert for false reporting an image that is obviously not inappropriate despite the image having been inappropriate when it was reported, meaning that either way somebody is getting an alert despite having not done anything wrong

I support! Mostly because most people on scratch are kids.

lapisi wrote:

meaning that either way somebody is getting an alert despite having not done anything wrong

again, alerts for a report that turns out to be false are quite rare.
And again, permalinks exist, so it you want to link to an old version of The Blue Marble, you would use https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/97/20200925203543%21The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg and not https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg

and plus, most images are actually on WIkimedia Commons, and the real links are at upload.wikimedia.org.

dhuls wrote:

lapisi wrote:

meaning that either way somebody is getting an alert despite having not done anything wrong

again, alerts for a report that turns out to be false are quite rare.
And again, permalinks exist, so it you want to link to an old version of The Blue Marble, you would use https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/97/20200925203543%21The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg and not https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg

and plus, most images are actually on WIkimedia Commons, and the real links are at upload.wikimedia.org.

That's what I said. Allow Wikimedia Commons.

Bump

Support

Support, but only if you allow people to import their own pictures into forums.