SavetheAtlantic wrote:

(#181)

lapisi wrote:

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

(#179)

ScratchCat1038 wrote:

The thing is a scratcher could post a perfectly good image, and then some random dude on Wikipedia vandalizes the image, and someone on Scratch thinks the user that posted the image before it got vandalized could think they maliciously posted a bad image, report it, and the user would get alerted for something that wasn't their fault at all.

And don't forget #169. The bots only pick up text vandalism so image vandalism would have to be reverted by a human, which may take some time.

Do you know how incredibly unlikely that is?

do you know how incredibly unlikely it is that malware is disguised as a Scratch browser extension? we're still not allowed to discuss browser extensions on Scratch because of the possibility of malware despite how unlikely it is

So? This isn't about the extension policy. I don't think anyone even agrees with it, so why even use it as an example? Why would you want another extension policy?

ScratchCat1038 wrote:

*sigh*

They were comparing the extension policy to this situation. It's still possible (as many vandals on Wikipedia are super dedicated), even if the chance is super minute. The same thing happened with the extension policy. They created it even though the chance of a malicious browser extension disguised as a browser extension for Scratch is extremely minute, possibly less minute than the chance of the scenario in my post.

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

(#184)

ScratchCat1038 wrote:

*sigh*

They were comparing the extension policy to this situation. It's still possible (as many vandals on Wikipedia are super dedicated), even if the chance is super minute. The same thing happened with the extension policy. They created it even though the chance of a malicious browser extension disguised as a browser extension for Scratch is extremely minute, possibly less minute than the chance of the scenario in my post.

Vandals on Wikipedia are not super dedicated. Very, very, very few have gotten autoconfirmed.

op456 wrote:

I think it's better we move onto the side of safety

dhuls wrote:

(#186)

op456 wrote:

I think it's better we move onto the side of safety

Might as well censor all links outside of Scratch

dhuls wrote:

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 (redacted), 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.

lapisi wrote:

(#187)

dhuls wrote:

(#186)

op456 wrote:

I think it's better we move onto the side of safety

Might as well censor all links outside of Scratch

I don't think you're understanding what we're trying to say here, the reason we're saying don't use wikipedia for images is because it's possible for an image to get vandalized and turned into an inappropriate image after being posted on the forums, and need I remind you that the reason this topic exists is because a perfectly normal image got replaced with an extremely inappropriate one and stayed that way for an entire day???? other sites don't work that way, when's the last time a Youtube video got replaced by something inappropriate? never, that's when. because it can't be edited

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.

lapisi wrote:

on April Fools Day this year, I was using Algodoo and found the “buy more polygons” joke, I clicked the link, which lead to the Wikipedia page for April Fools Day, the only problem was that the main image was replaced with an extremely inappropriate image, and according to the Scratch Wiki the forums allow Wikipedia to be used as an image host, this has the potential for inappropriate images to accidentally be uploaded to the Scratch Forums because at the time of uploading they weren't inappropriate

Twinklespeak wrote:

You know, there is a reason why teachers tell you not to use Wikipedia for research. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE can edit Wikipedia pages as they please.

Twinklespeak wrote:

While yes, Wikipedia is (mostly) educational, that doesn't automatically mean it's G-rated-squeaky-clean.

There is some violence in this movie including:

Bees are swatted and sprayed at with insect repellent.
A boss bee hits a worker bee.
Barry slaps his friend Adam (Mathew Broderick) across the face.
The Pollen Jock bees behave in a bullying and aggressive fashion.
Barry gets hit with a tennis ball. He attaches himself to it, and then gets hit from player to player.
Barry lands on a windscreen and gets into the car engine, is hit by the fan blades, attacked by a dog and causes cars to crash.
Barry flies repeatedly into a window, into a light globe, is nearly swallowed and attacked by humans.

Twinklespeak wrote:

Plus, how and why are people even using Wikipedia as an image host anyways? That's what sites like Imageshack and Cubeupload are for.

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.

dhuls wrote:

I'm now copypasting this for the second time, if i have to do it again I will slap my laptop's keyboard

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.

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

potatophant wrote:

XxhackerlolxX wrote:

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.

no support, i'd never even heard of the slave trade until i heard of the slave trade, making me believe it to be a small scale thing. This shouldn't be enough to ban an entire slave trade.

seriously though, you ought to look into the problem first before going as far as like actually making a forum post.

disclaimer i dont like slave trading

The fact that you're comparing a minor nuance in the forums nobody has abused in 10 years to the atrocities of the Atlantic Slave Trade really says something

potatophant wrote:

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

potatophant wrote:

XxhackerlolxX wrote:

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.

no support, i'd never even heard of the slave trade until i heard of the slave trade, making me believe it to be a small scale thing. This shouldn't be enough to ban an entire slave trade.

seriously though, you ought to look into the problem first before going as far as like actually making a forum post.

disclaimer i dont like slave trading

The fact that you're comparing a minor nuance in the forums nobody has abused in 10 years to the atrocities of the Atlantic Slave Trade really says something

the same logic applies though, no?

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:

(#194)

dhuls wrote:

I'm now copypasting this for the second time, if i have to do it again I will slap my laptop's keyboard

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.

What's your point?

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:

Wikipedia is very, very, VERY cursed, and can be edited by ANYONE (including that drunk dude who just stole a computer, and the 5 year old Among Us spammer)

dhuls wrote:

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:

(#194)

dhuls wrote:

I'm now copypasting this for the second time, if i have to do it again I will slap my laptop's keyboard

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.

What's your point?

Did you even read what I posted?

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:

Wikipedia is very, very, VERY cursed, and can be edited by ANYONE (including that drunk dude who just stole a computer, and the 5 year old Among Us spammer)

Except there's thousands of people who patrol the recent changes, and an anti-vandalism bot

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:

(#200)

dhuls wrote:

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:

(#194)

dhuls wrote:

I'm now copypasting this for the second time, if i have to do it again I will slap my laptop's keyboard

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.

What's your point?

Did you even read what I posted?

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:

Wikipedia is very, very, VERY cursed, and can be edited by ANYONE (including that drunk dude who just stole a computer, and the 5 year old Among Us spammer)

Except there's thousands of people who patrol the recent changes, and an anti-vandalism bot

So…what are you getting at? Even so, people could edit it on purpose to get people banned, if what I read is correct.

dhuls wrote:

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:

(#200)

dhuls wrote:

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:

(#194)

dhuls wrote:

I'm now copypasting this for the second time, if i have to do it again I will slap my laptop's keyboard

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.

What's your point?

Did you even read what I posted?

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:

Wikipedia is very, very, VERY cursed, and can be edited by ANYONE (including that drunk dude who just stole a computer, and the 5 year old Among Us spammer)

Except there's thousands of people who patrol the recent changes, and an anti-vandalism bot

So…what are you getting at? Even so, people could edit it on purpose to get people banned, if what I read is correct.

1. If someone tried, it would probably get reverted really quick
2. Unless the topic of the Wikipedia article was already not allowed, you probably won't get banned