stop allowing wikipedia to be used as an image host

warriorcats2155

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:
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
Can you get banned from Wikipedia? If not, someone is gonna spam that bad image until they get banned. This might cause a serious crisis if a person up to mischief does that

You CAN

The-Molten-Freddy

warriorcats2155 wrote:
The-Molten-Freddy wrote:
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
Can you get banned from Wikipedia? If not, someone is gonna spam that bad image until they get banned. This might cause a serious crisis if a person up to mischief does that
You CAN

OK THEN. What are we doing by this point? Just, we need to get back on topic.

Last edited by The-Molten-Freddy (June 14, 2022 17:14:23)

warriorcats2155

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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Still, NO SUPPORT.

ScratchCat1038

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:
(#204)
warriorcats2155 wrote:
-snip-
You CAN
OK THEN. What are we doing by this point? Just, we need to get back on topic.

The only thing is you have to be warned sufficiently before you can get blocked (usually 4 warnings). A vandal could replace an image with a highly inappropriate image and only get a warning. They would have to do it another 4 times before they can get banned. And AFAIK recent changes doesn't show images being overwritten with new ones, so it would take longer for the vandalism to get reverted. Multiply that by 5 (for the four warnings) equals the possibility of a kid seeing it.

And when a vandal has vandalized after the fourth warning, often users will have to report them, and it may take some time for an admin to see the report and block the user. The vandal could vandalize much more, thus increasing the chances of a kid seeing it.

Last edited by ScratchCat1038 (June 14, 2022 17:29:09)

The-Molten-Freddy

warriorcats2155 wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Still, NO SUPPORT.

Why not? Explain.

The-Molten-Freddy

ScratchCat1038 wrote:
The only thing is you have to be warned sufficiently before you can get blocked (usually 4 warnings). A vandal could replace an image with a highly inappropriate one and only get a warning. .

Wait, seriously? I thought it would only need to happen once

Last edited by The-Molten-Freddy (June 14, 2022 17:28:51)

warriorcats2155

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:
warriorcats2155 wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Still, NO SUPPORT.
Why not? Explain.

the quotes said what I wanted to say.

The-Molten-Freddy

warriorcats2155 wrote:
The-Molten-Freddy wrote:
warriorcats2155 wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Still, NO SUPPORT.
Why not? Explain.
the quotes said what I wanted to say.

Ok… that's basically stealing someone's idea but ok

ScratchCat1038

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:
(#208)
ScratchCat1038 wrote:
The only thing is you have to be warned sufficiently before you can get blocked (usually 4 warnings). A vandal could replace an image with a highly inappropriate one and only get a warning. .
Wait, seriously? I thought it would only need to happen once

Well sometimes a user will just go straight to the last warning in cases of egregious vandalism, but then again they could vandalize tons in the time a report is up for the vandal.

warriorcats2155

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:
warriorcats2155 wrote:
The-Molten-Freddy wrote:
warriorcats2155 wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Still, NO SUPPORT.
Why not? Explain.
the quotes said what I wanted to say.
Ok… that's basically stealing someone's idea but ok

I heard from somewhere that ideas can't be copyrighted.

Edit: Wrong quote lmao rip me

Last edited by warriorcats2155 (June 14, 2022 17:33:39)

lapisi

warriorcats2155 wrote:
(#212)
The-Molten-Freddy wrote:
warriorcats2155 wrote:
The-Molten-Freddy wrote:
warriorcats2155 wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Still, NO SUPPORT.
Why not? Explain.
the quotes said what I wanted to say.
Ok… that's basically stealing someone's idea but ok

I heard from somewhere that ideas can't be copyrighted.

Edit: Wrong quote lmao rip me

but it's still not constructive

musicROCKS013

warriorcats2155 wrote:
I heard from somewhere that ideas can't be copyrighted.

No, but Pokemon is a franchise, not an idea. If I made a game where people went out and caught rare animals and fought with them, Pokemon probably couldn't sue me, but if I name the game “Pokemon 3,” they can, because the name “Pokemon” is copyrighted.

lapisi

musicROCKS013 wrote:
(#214)
warriorcats2155 wrote:
I heard from somewhere that ideas can't be copyrighted.
No, but Pokemon is a franchise, not an idea. If I made a game where people went out and caught rare animals and fought with them, Pokemon probably couldn't sue me, but if I name the game “Pokemon 3,” they can, because the name “Pokemon” is copyrighted.

who's talking about Pokemon? this is about wikipedia.

musicROCKS013

lapisi wrote:
who's talking about Pokemon? this is about wikipedia.

:facepalm: I apologize for my idiocy.

lapisi

by the way, when would anyone ever need to use an image from wikipedia in the forums?

jackson49

lapisi wrote:
by the way, when would anyone ever need to use an image from wikipedia in the forums?

It could be useful if someone doesn't have access to any other image host. There's so many images on Wikipedia that they'd likely be able to find one that's related to a topic and helps illustrate their point. That said, I think the pros of this suggestion outweighs the cons.

Last edited by jackson49 (June 14, 2022 21:40:31)

-iviedwall-

People, if anyone can edit Wikipedia images, why don't y'all change the image back when you saw a vandalized image

SilverIceDragon123

Support - There are a LOT of inappropriate articles and images on Wikipedia, and if it's whitelisted people can use them on the forums.

Also if an image that is perfectly fine is used, it could be changed at any time by anyone to something that isn't. Even if it gets reverted, it could still have been seen by someone, and that's problematic for multiple reasons.

Last edited by SilverIceDragon123 (June 15, 2022 12:43:47)

-iviedwall-

SilverIceDragon123 wrote:
Support - There are a LOT of inappropriate articles and images on Wikipedia

citation needed

SilverIceDragon123 wrote:
Also if an image that is perfectly fine is used, it could be changed at any time by anyone to something that isn't.

-iviedwall- wrote:
People, if anyone can edit Wikipedia images, why don't y'all change the image back when you saw a vandalized image

SilverIceDragon123 wrote:
Even if it gets reverted, it could still be seen by someone, and that's problematic for multiple reasons.

According to your logic, people will still see the original image if somebody vandalizes an image.

Assuming that you didn't mean to include the word “still,” well, if someone saw an inappropriate image, you can't erase their memory or anything.

SilverIceDragon123

-iviedwall- wrote:
SilverIceDragon123 wrote:
Even if it gets reverted, it could still be seen by someone, and that's problematic for multiple reasons.
According to your logic, people will still see the original image if somebody vandalizes an image.

You may have misinterpreted what I said. By “still be” I meant “still have been” and I have edited my original post to clarify. To be honest, I'm not the best at wording things sometimes and what I meant is that they could have seen the vandalised one before it was reverted.

-iviedwall- wrote:
Well, if someone saw an inappropriate image, you can't erase their memory or anything.

That's exactly my point. But by removing Wikipedia as an image host, that someone could be prevented from seeing that inappropriate image in the first place.

Discuss Scratch