SavetheAtlantic wrote:

(#242)

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.

this suggestion is because of vandalism, a normal image can be posted to the forums and then get vandalized into something inappropriate, and then the post gets reported, and then the one who posted it gets in trouble despite the image being perfectly fine when it was posted

bump

*is surprised this topic is still going, noting that I posted on this many months ago*

Well… maybe Scratch could look into an image filter, only selecting good images (though this might lead to other problems)

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:

*is surprised this topic is still going, noting that I posted on this many months ago*

Well… maybe Scratch could look into an image filter, only selecting good images (though this might lead to other problems)

that's a good idea! when a wikipedia image goes to a filter, it will pass several tests to check if the image is safe

if it is safe, it will show something like this




if the image is unsafe, it will look like this

“sorry this image is unsafe and will not be shown. if you want a different image, replace this with an appropriate image”

-r-e-v-e-n-g-e- wrote:

(#247)

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:

*is surprised this topic is still going, noting that I posted on this many months ago*

Well… maybe Scratch could look into an image filter, only selecting good images (though this might lead to other problems)

that's a good idea! when a wikipedia image goes to a filter, it will pass several tests to check if the image is safe

if it is safe, it will show something like this




if the image is unsafe, it will look like this

“sorry this image is unsafe and will not be shown. if you want a different image, replace this with an appropriate image”

and if a posted image gets vandalized?

support because you dont even need an account to change wiki images I think

-r-e-v-e-n-g-e- wrote:

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:

*is surprised this topic is still going, noting that I posted on this many months ago*

Well… maybe Scratch could look into an image filter, only selecting good images (though this might lead to other problems)

that's a good idea! when a wikipedia image goes to a filter, it will pass several tests to check if the image is safe

if it is safe, it will show something like this




if the image is unsafe, it will look like this

“sorry this image is unsafe and will not be shown. if you want a different image, replace this with an appropriate image”

pretty sure image filters require tons of processing power and ai training to do, time which st does not have

Support! Wiki has some NSFW and NSFL content that shouldn't be able to be seen anywhere in the forums! We already have much better hosts, like the Scratch Wiki, etc.

blomplings that's a bump btw

Bump

The fact that Wikimedia is unmoderated (which means it can have nsfw or nsfl things) means that it should be removed just in case people abuse it with editing the picture even without an account can be dangerous for the forum website and it could of been temporally be removed (and I think that did happen)

So support for my reason.

Support - Wikimedia allows ANYONE, any person with access to the internet, even probably dial-up, to edit ANYTHING on it. There is a huge amount of power to be able to display or change millions of pictures and files on it. Wikimedia also has no censorship; it does have moderation to prevent vandalism, spam, and other things, but it is still almost completely uncensored, even if you don't like your IP being leaked due to editing an image, you can either just get an account or use a to edit images without consequence. I do not acknowledge using a to access Scratch, but I agree with all of your points, and even if many signatures will implode, just use something else as an alternative to Wikimedia Commons, such as sites Scratch allows for its forum hosting.

glomeromycota wrote:

-r-e-v-e-n-g-e- wrote:

The-Molten-Freddy wrote:

*is surprised this topic is still going, noting that I posted on this many months ago*

Well… maybe Scratch could look into an image filter, only selecting good images (though this might lead to other problems)

that's a good idea! when a wikipedia image goes to a filter, it will pass several tests to check if the image is safe

if it is safe, it will show something like this




if the image is unsafe, it will look like this

“sorry this image is unsafe and will not be shown. if you want a different image, replace this with an appropriate image”

pretty sure image filters require tons of processing power and ai training to do, time which st does not have

Yeah, the ST is a nonprofit after all, it is also a nonprofit that has to deal with thousands of new forum posts, potential legal issues, and unlike , they are not a multi-billion dollar organization. Remember that when a decal is made, they have the resources to do an image AI sorting method and still have many false positives AND false negatives, which is not the case for the ST. They should just not allow Wikimedia Commons images at all, as it will be a better solution. What about false negatives, or false positives, which both are a huge issue, when instead you can just force them to use another image hosting site that Scratch allows.

amazing that this topic is still alive.

WojtekGame wrote:

(#257)
amazing that this topic is still alive.

why would it not be?

I tested this out and it's surprising how this feature hasn't been removed yet, Wikipedia does have some very NSFW images.
In case you're curious, this is the image I tested with.

I was just going through my old posts on Ocular when I came across this, and I would like to provide some additional insight into this, from the point of view of someone who has over 6k edits on Wikipedia that are mostly just vandalism-related.

Anyone, and I mean anyone can change an image to anything, as long as they have made at least 10 edits and have at least a 4-day-old account. This may sound like a lot of work (you have to find 10 changes in articles to make), until you bring the sandboxes into play. You can put anything in the over 60 sandboxes, as long as it is not “promotional, copyrighted, offensive, or libelous”. That means someone could just test out a lot of stuff in their own sandbox, wait four days, and voila, you can change an image. This is quite easy for dedicated vandals to do, and a lot of them are.

There are bots that revert vandalism, but they can only see text-related vandalism (such as replacing a paragraph of content with a swear).

Neither recent changes nor the several anti-vandal tools listed here will show image replacements, making image vandalism take much longer to spot and revert.

And then, they get warned. Four times (although some warning levels can be skipped in bad cases). It goes from “hey, could you please not change images to inappropriate things” to "if you do this again, you will get blocked." And then, if they vandalize after the fourth warning, you can report the vandal. Reports usually get dealt with within 20 minutes, although in that time the vandal could vandalize more. One tricky vandal I once dealt with was able to make almost 10 edits after I reported them, including changing the report message to something very inappropriate and changing my signature so it broke the page. Another copy and pasted this (not inappropriate, just annoying) about 30k times onto my user talk page.

And if the image that vandal was targeting just happened to be used on Scratch… yea.

The fact that they created a list of images they don't want to be allowed in most articles says something about how determined some vandals are. The vandal that caused that list to be made created several accounts just to spam an incredibly inappropriate image to hundreds of user talk pages, and it became so much of a problem that they created that list, including not only the image the vandal used but several other images that vandals were using.

I changed my mind on this post.

Wikipedia already is known as the most popular dictionary and encyclopedia on the internet, so it wouldn't make sense and it would be an outrage if the ST blocked their website as a whole due to the inappropriate images used in articles.

With everyone else's reasoning in this topic, I think that the ST should consider blocking articles from being posted that could contain any type of image that isn't censored or is inappropriate to Scratch Team's standards of the main website.

bump. ik this topic is dying but still