stop allowing wikipedia to be used as an image host

mybearworld

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

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/449439/

jackson49

Bump

ToastRoastBoast

mrcreatorluigi wrote:
Full support, just remove it entirely because of the above posts said.

i agree

jackson49

Bump

Myst--

Support! This is kinda ridiculous. I have seen other suggestions related to this one due to the fact that scratch hosts pictures on a lot of different websites.

sharkode

dhuls wrote:
jackson49 wrote:
dhuls wrote:
hiPeeps124816 wrote:
k7e wrote:
There are also some bad images on Wikipedia which might show up on the forums.
thats an understatement
support wikipedia isnt just for kids
The same can be said for literally every other whitelisted image host (even Scratch, as it's for 8-16)
True, but Scratch moderation is better than Wikipedia
Also true, but the other image hosts…

Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, CubeUpload can't

sharkode

Support, because the pages can be easily vandalised, plus it's almost completely useless as it's hard to find an useful image

jackson49

Bump

ideapad-320

sharkode wrote:
dhuls wrote:
jackson49 wrote:
dhuls wrote:
hiPeeps124816 wrote:
k7e wrote:
There are also some bad images on Wikipedia which might show up on the forums.
thats an understatement
support wikipedia isnt just for kids
The same can be said for literally every other whitelisted image host (even Scratch, as it's for 8-16)
True, but Scratch moderation is better than Wikipedia
Also true, but the other image hosts…
Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, CubeUpload can't

But what are the chances of a appropriate wikipedia images be replaced by a bad one?

sharkode

ideapad-320 wrote:
sharkode wrote:
dhuls wrote:
jackson49 wrote:
dhuls wrote:
hiPeeps124816 wrote:
k7e wrote:
There are also some bad images on Wikipedia which might show up on the forums.
thats an understatement
support wikipedia isnt just for kids
The same can be said for literally every other whitelisted image host (even Scratch, as it's for 8-16)
True, but Scratch moderation is better than Wikipedia
Also true, but the other image hosts…
Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, CubeUpload can't
But what are the chances of a appropriate wikipedia images be replaced by a bad one?

Still, why would you use a wikipedia image?

lapisi

ideapad-320 wrote:
(#152)
sharkode wrote:
dhuls wrote:
jackson49 wrote:
dhuls wrote:
hiPeeps124816 wrote:
k7e wrote:
There are also some bad images on Wikipedia which might show up on the forums.
thats an understatement
support wikipedia isnt just for kids
The same can be said for literally every other whitelisted image host (even Scratch, as it's for 8-16)
True, but Scratch moderation is better than Wikipedia
Also true, but the other image hosts…
Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, CubeUpload can't
But what are the chances of a appropriate wikipedia images be replaced by a bad one?

it's still possible that non-vandalized images can be inappropriate, there's entire pages on Wikipedia about stuff that's not appropriate for Scratch

sharkode

ideapad-320 wrote:
sharkode wrote:
dhuls wrote:
jackson49 wrote:
dhuls wrote:
hiPeeps124816 wrote:
k7e wrote:
There are also some bad images on Wikipedia which might show up on the forums.
thats an understatement
support wikipedia isnt just for kids
The same can be said for literally every other whitelisted image host (even Scratch, as it's for 8-16)
True, but Scratch moderation is better than Wikipedia
Also true, but the other image hosts…
Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, CubeUpload can't
But what are the chances of a appropriate wikipedia images be replaced by a bad one?

Sometimes just because an image is allowed on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's allowed on Scratch, Wikipedia has articles about sex, which is definitely not allowed on Scratch

Yoshiii999

Support, there are some images containing nudity on Wikipedia, plus, it's wiki, so that's another problem

and Scratch is for all ages

ideapad-320

sharkode wrote:
ideapad-320 wrote:
sharkode wrote:
dhuls wrote:
jackson49 wrote:
dhuls wrote:
hiPeeps124816 wrote:
k7e wrote:
There are also some bad images on Wikipedia which might show up on the forums.
thats an understatement
support wikipedia isnt just for kids
The same can be said for literally every other whitelisted image host (even Scratch, as it's for 8-16)
True, but Scratch moderation is better than Wikipedia
Also true, but the other image hosts…
Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, CubeUpload can't
But what are the chances of a appropriate wikipedia images be replaced by a bad one?
Sometimes just because an image is allowed on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's allowed on Scratch, Wikipedia has articles about sex, which is definitely not allowed on Scratch

But I said replaced!

dhuls

lapisi wrote:
's still possible that non-vandalized images can be inappropriate, there's entire pages on Wikipedia about stuff that's not appropriate for Scratch

sharkode wrote:
Sometimes just because an image is allowed on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's allowed on Scratch, Wikipedia has articles about sex, which is definitely not allowed on Scratch

At that point the uploader is completely at fault for that. Punishment is completely justified in that case.

sharkode wrote:
Still, why would you use a wikipedia image?

Would you rather go through the effort to take a screenshot, save it (Snip & Sketch doesn't automatically save the file) and upload it, or just use one that's already pre-uploaded.
Also licensing (all images on Wikimedia Commons are freely licensed)

sharkode wrote:
(#149)
dhuls wrote:
Also true, but the other image hosts…
Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, CubeUpload can't

CubeUpload has downtime a lot.
Assets is complicated to use without a browser extension
Tinypic shut down years ago
Scratch Wiki images must be used on the Wiki, and getting a Wiki account isn't that easy, plus the few non-Scratch related images are in userspace
Uploads is far from the most user friendly
Photobucket has a limit of 250 photos (with a watermark) unless you pay
Imageshack is paid, and allegedly can replace images with ads.

stargrazing

support for all the reasons already mentioned

jackson49

Bump

Jackson49_test

Bump

Jackson49_test

Bump

IndexErrorException

No support, ive never even heard of this issue before, making me believe it to be a small scale thing. This shouldn't be enough to block an entire image host.

Discuss Scratch