stop allowing wikipedia to be used as an image host

The-Molten-Freddy

-iviedwall- wrote:
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.
-iviedwall- wrote:
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

That isn't logic. It makes no sense; if I'm correct, what I've picked up is that an image will change because the base link is still the same, but the image itself isn't. In that case, you wouldn't be able to see the OG image… or am I wrong?

Last edited by The-Molten-Freddy (June 15, 2022 14:53:40)

ScratchCat1038

-iviedwall- wrote:
(#219)
People, if anyone can edit Wikipedia images, why don't y'all change the image back when you saw a vandalized image

Only users who have registered an account for at least 4 days and have at least 10 edits can edit or revert edits on images.

lapisi

-iviedwall- wrote:
(#221)
SilverIceDragon123 wrote:
Support - There are a LOT of inappropriate articles and images on Wikipedia
citation needed
~snip~

no, we don't need a citation, because that would involve linking to an inappropriate article

ScratchCat1038

bump.

lapisi

bump

dhuls

Solution: When someone links to an image on Wikipedia, Scratch makes a copy of it which doesn’t change

lapisi

dhuls wrote:
(#228)
Solution: When someone links to an image on Wikipedia, Scratch makes a copy of it which doesn’t change

likely not going to happen for the same reason we can't upload images from our computer into the forums: because of storage

Last edited by lapisi (June 19, 2022 16:50:06)

dhuls

lapisi wrote:
(#229)
dhuls wrote:
(#228)
Solution: When someone links to an image on Wikipedia, Scratch makes a copy of it which doesn’t change
likely not going to happen for the same reason we can't upload images from our computer into the forums: because of storage

This is the same website that allows assets in projects to have images up to 10MB in size

Plus, they could always downsize the images to be within 10MB if they're too big

scratchgodo

dhuls wrote:
lapisi wrote:
(#229)
dhuls wrote:
(#228)
Solution: When someone links to an image on Wikipedia, Scratch makes a copy of it which doesn’t change
likely not going to happen for the same reason we can't upload images from our computer into the forums: because of storage
This is the same website that allows assets in projects to have images up to 10MB in size

Plus, they could always downsize the images to be within 10MB if they're too big

And not everyone is going to be uploading stuff to it.

minikiwigeek2

The simple fact that Wikipedia is allowed as an image host on a kid's website astounds me. Especially because they have a no censorship policy.

Support.

lapisi

dhuls wrote:
(#230)
lapisi wrote:
(#229)
dhuls wrote:
(#228)
Solution: When someone links to an image on Wikipedia, Scratch makes a copy of it which doesn’t change
likely not going to happen for the same reason we can't upload images from our computer into the forums: because of storage
This is the same website that allows assets in projects to have images up to 10MB in size

Plus, they could always downsize the images to be within 10MB if they're too big

TOLoRS wrote:
9.5 Allow files to be uploaded into forum posts
The Scratch Team would have to pay for storage of these files, and they only have a limited amount of resources to do so. Storage space would be better allocated toward Scratch projects, anyway. There is also the issue of someone uploading a file that can potentially cause harm to someone's computer. Searching through these files would require significantly more moderation work, and there are not enough moderators able to do the job at the moment.

AngelDemonHybrid

I am on the fence on this.

On one hand, I do agree that Wikipedia does have a lot of inappropriate content, and kids should not see it.

However the amount of people here advocating for censoring Wikipedia is concerning. It is not for kids, it is intended to give knowledge, and some of that can be.. well.. not allowed on Scratch. It doesn't mean it should be censored on Wikipedia just because of that reason. Knowledge should be not censored. It should be well-known, at least to adults who can understand and process stuff like that easier.

Overall, NEVER CENSOR Wikipedia or other sources of knowledge, but do censor any inappropriate images on kid's websites, as children should not be exposed to some stuff that is on that website (Like violence and nudity). Having said that though, that's why I'll just remain neutral to this conversation. No Support or Support.

jackson49

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

I accidentally came across very inappropriate images on Wikipedia just three days ago, and it wasn't even vandalism.

Last edited by jackson49 (June 20, 2022 20:54:36)

-iviedwall-

dhuls wrote:
Solution: When someone links to an image on Wikipedia, Scratch makes a copy of it which doesn’t change

This is already implemented. Wikipedia saves revisions of images, and you can just use the image's permanent link.

lapisi

-iviedwall- wrote:
(#236)
dhuls wrote:
Solution: When someone links to an image on Wikipedia, Scratch makes a copy of it which doesn’t change
This is already implemented. Wikipedia saves revisions of images, and you can just use the image's permanent link.

read the text that looks like this also there would be no way to filter saved revisions, also there's this

NanoRook

jackson49 wrote:
-iviedwall- wrote:
SilverIceDragon123 wrote:
Support - There are a LOT of inappropriate articles and images on Wikipedia
citation needed
I accidentally came across very inappropriate images on Wikipedia just three days ago, and it wasn't even vandalism.

This is what tends to happen on academic resources, especially those dealing with topics considered profane for places like Scratch.

Ultimately, there would never be a 100% squeaky clean image host that perfectly adheres to Scratch's standards. Even the one image host you're practically allowed to use on the forums (cubeupload) was and still is liable to people uploading NSFW content.

The ideal situation is for Scratch to host images themselves but considering the forums are half-abandoned in their current state I don't see that happening soon.

lapisi

NanoRook wrote:
(#238)
jackson49 wrote:
-iviedwall- wrote:
SilverIceDragon123 wrote:
Support - There are a LOT of inappropriate articles and images on Wikipedia
citation needed
I accidentally came across very inappropriate images on Wikipedia just three days ago, and it wasn't even vandalism.

This is what tends to happen on academic resources, especially those dealing with topics considered profane for places like Scratch.

Ultimately, there would never be a 100% squeaky clean image host that perfectly adheres to Scratch's standards. Even the one image host you're practically allowed to use on the forums (cubeupload) was and still is liable to people uploading NSFW content.

The ideal situation is for Scratch to host images themselves but considering the forums are half-abandoned in their current state I don't see that happening soon.

that and this

NanoRook

lapisi wrote:
NanoRook wrote:
(#238)
jackson49 wrote:
-iviedwall- wrote:
SilverIceDragon123 wrote:
Support - There are a LOT of inappropriate articles and images on Wikipedia
citation needed
I accidentally came across very inappropriate images on Wikipedia just three days ago, and it wasn't even vandalism.

This is what tends to happen on academic resources, especially those dealing with topics considered profane for places like Scratch.

Ultimately, there would never be a 100% squeaky clean image host that perfectly adheres to Scratch's standards. Even the one image host you're practically allowed to use on the forums (cubeupload) was and still is liable to people uploading NSFW content.

The ideal situation is for Scratch to host images themselves but considering the forums are half-abandoned in their current state I don't see that happening soon.
that and this

So they want all image hosts to be SFW (such image hosts have been suggested before, and a ST member even said they'd suggest it to the team) but they won't approve any new ones for reasons as of yet unknown, and they can't practically host images by themselves.

What's the plan when cubeupload inevitably goes down?

SonicFanX123_321

i agree, afaik wikipedia have a lot of nsfw media (maybe nsfl as well) and this could lead to forum trolls who have nothing to do all day long spamming these inappropriate images

SavetheAtlantic

SonicFanX123_321 wrote:
i agree, afaik wikipedia have a lot of nsfw media (maybe nsfl as well) and this could lead to forum trolls who have nothing to do all day long spamming these inappropriate images

I don't there are any forum trolls who have the dedication to gain the Scratcher rank, and also know of no other way to spam inappropriate images besides Wikipedia.

Last edited by SavetheAtlantic (Aug. 21, 2022 06:25:40)

Discuss Scratch